> The message below which I just received from a local non-profit
> group is an example of why it's good to have a detailed party
> platform
The vaunted 2004 Platform had nothing to say on this subject, so this is
instead a good example of how a detailed party platform can still never
say everything there is to say about libertarianism.
These people explicitly want to "make the arts a priority" for the nanny
state. They praised Peace & Freedom for advocating "government funding
for ordinary people to create and enjoy art". They may be dumb, but I
doubt they're dumb enough to not notice that your discourse on the arts
comes down in opposition to such subsidies.
I'm an unapologetic libertarian. I don't think our Platform needs to
explain for every possible proposed tax-financed subsidy -- for the
arts, or for growing mohair, etc. -- why such subsidies are wrong.
There is an entire libertarian literature devoted to such explanations.
Your discourse on the arts is a fine one, and the start of a good
narrow-audience brochure, but I don't envision its presence in our
platform changing the mind of any art subsidizer.
I wouldn't mind adding "subsidies" and "content" to the recycled
language we currently have, yielding: "We support full freedom of
expression and oppose government censorship, subsidies, regulation or
control of communications media, content or technology."
The beauty of our platform, like that of our principles, lies in
simplicity and elegance. We don't need to clutter our platform with a
list of historical artists who have made artistic contributions to freedom.
