As a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan, I participate in an Internet e-mail forum known as Savoynet, where everything about the famous librettist and composer of late Victorian comic opera comes under discussion. Recently a forum participant lamented the demise more than 20 years ago of the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company, which began producing the operas in 1889 under impresario Richard D’Oyly Carte. The participant speculated that had the British government extended sufficient subsidies, the company might have survived. There ensued a discussion of whether subsidies would have done the trick.
I took another tack: “But that [a subsidy] would have meant forcing the taxpayers to do what they would not do voluntarily as theatergoers. Where’s the justice in that? Maybe they had something else to do with their money.”
That didn’t go over well. One respondent wrote: “That is precisely why taxes exist. They permit community expenditure on things that individuals cannot or will not support on their own, but that are necessary or desirable.”
I replied, “‘Necessary or desirable’ by whose standard? The individual should be free to decide what it is necessary or desirable for him to spend his own money on. ‘Community expenditure’ is a euphemism for the larger gang compelling the smaller group to do something its members don’t want to do. Special-interest peddling is not the least bit noble, regardless of how much communitarian crepe paper is draped over it.”
I might as well have been speaking Sumerian.
Another participant wrote this: “Huge subsidies of opera/theatre worldwide are a modern fact of life, and are unrelated to the benevolence of taxpayers. For example, at the splendid Colón Theatre in Buenos Aires, once described by Toscanini as ‘the best theatre in the world,’ the 1995 Government grant was 75 percent. Would it have been reasonable to ask ‘where is the justice in that?’”
To which I replied: “By all means it would have been reasonable. Why should elitist policymakers, with or without Toscanini’s blessing, decide that an individual must spend his money on the Colón Theatre rather than on his family or himself?”
To which he replied: “I would say, Sheldon, that the world would be a poorer place if it were possible for your thinking to be universally applied!”
No space here to elaborate on the irony of this gentleman’s suggestion that a world without coercive subsides would be a poorer place. On the contrary, in more than one way it would be a richer place.
* * *
In its effort to protect children from unsavory material, the U.S. government is trying to create a safe haven on the World Wide Web. Gary McGath predicts that it won’t protect anyone, but says this venture in shaping the Internet is ominous.
Understanding that knowledge is open-ended sheds light on so many things, including the work of FEE. So says Israel Kirzner in this classic reprint.
The freedom philosophy comes down to making a moral distinction between persuasion and aggression. Since most people already accept that distinction in their personal lives, Gene Callahan says the foundation for building a free society is already in place.
Environmental activists who think capitalism isn’t “sustainable” are apparently unacquainted with the lengths to which businessmen have gone to get the most from resources. Pierre Desrochers continues his look at the benign environmental consequences of the profit motive.
The difference between advocates of the freedom philosophy and of socialism comes down to a clash over whether human beings have a specific nature. Frédéric Bastiat early on understood what the debate was about. Jim Peron explains.
Another way that compulsory unionism makes life difficult for people is by raising the cost of government. Steven Greenhut shows how it works.
Only a misunderstanding of human motivation can explain why some people prefer nonprofit operations to for-profit enterprises. Karen Selick gets to the bottom of the mystery.
Until government stepped in, selfish capitalists intentionally paid workers so little that they could barely stay alive. That’s what virtually everyone is taught. Thomas Woods corrects the record.
The controversy over whether the U.S. government should maintain an embargo against Cuba is based on the assumption that without the embargo the communist island could afford to import American products. T. Norman Van Cott questions that assumption.
Eons ago mankind lived in happy socialist communes without profit or private property. How do we know? The socialists have told us so—over and over. One problem, according to Robert Wright: the story is wrong.
Here’s what this month’s columnists have come up with: Lawrence Reed considers the nature of patriotism. Doug Bandow looks at the regulatory jungle. Steven Davies revisits China’s industrial revolution. Donald Boudreaux dissects hypocrisy. Russell Roberts contemplates the nature of price gouging. And Clayton Cramer, considering the claim that banning handguns would, on net, save lives, protests, “It Just Ain’t So!”
Books coming under the microscope deal with dependence on government, multiculturalism, H. L. Mencken, plutocracy, individualist feminism, and the late Robert Nozick.