Andrew Carlan wrote:

>There are some constants, which Adam Smith recognized, are inappropriate
>to the sole regulation of supply and demand because cost should not be
>the primary consideration.  "Should not" reminds us that Smith was a
>moral philosopher.  The making and adjudication of laws, guaranteeing
>basic health and safety should not be wholly determined by the marketplace,
>even if the marketplace could be more efficient....

Yes, indeed.  However, the problem does not lie in the observation that in
some cases it is necessary to add constraints to the regulation of price.
Price -- arising from supply and demand-- determines who in the society
will have access to given goods and services.  This inevitably gives rise
to the question as to whether there are some things that should be made
available to the populus in general regardless of cost to the individual.
There has not been a society where the answer to this question was an
unqualified 'no.' (Even the Von Mises people will admit some of this,
albeit very sparingly.) The problem lies not in that, but in the question
of what should be included amongst the goods that should be made available
to all or most citizens, regardless of true cost.  In times of budget
constraints an earlier candidate to be excluded -or proposed for exclusion-
is the arts, including, of course, classical music.

>Classical music, like all the arts and haute cuisine, tend to be enjoyed by
>those whose disposable income is higher than average, so it is especially
>unfair to redistribute wealth by government.

It would be unfair if (i) merely enjoyment was the issue and, (ii) only the
rich enjoyed the music in question (attended performances, etc., etc.)

The issue rests, however, more strongly on the importance of preserving,
sustaining, and building further the culture of a society.  (The 'building'
is, I believe, as important as the first two.) And given that, it would be
unfair to society, and the survival of the culture, not to support CM
beyond the income it generates by itself.  I once wrote that 'a society
that does not care for its posterity is doomed to extinction.' (I think I
got the idea from something I read but have been unable to identify the
source.) A strong case can be made, but unnecessary on this list, that this
is all the more true regarding CM.

As for who enjoys CM, while it is undoubtedly true that a goodly majority
of them are the financially better-off, there are also poor students
(whenever I dispair of what has happened to education I think of them
and feel better,) and poor people (in my youth there have been times when
I spent lunch money on a ticket, and there are many, many others who do
that.) Now, no doubt they are in the minority, i.e.  less than 50% of the
population, but that would matter only if we judged social values by
numbers.  So far as I know, no society has ever been able or willing to
do that.  Just reflect what would be excluded on that basis.

>Since there is no longer a either a ethical or aesthetic consensus in this
>country, the bureaucrats will not allocate support to the arts by any other
>standard then what happens to be politically correct at the moment.  One of
>the consistent arguments of those who want the highest wall of separation
>between church and state is that the church is the beneficiary.  Too much
>government support for religion will lead the government to water down
>religion.  Why don't we have the same fear about government intrusion into
>the arts?

We do, I think, have the same fear.  But I think the solution lies in
reforming both formal and 'natural' education.  The evidence for that can
be seen in the chasms between societies with regard to the support they
give to CM.  Think of, say, Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, England,
and, of course, Canada.  (Each differs from the other in how well they
value and support CM.) They are all democratic societies, and they all
have bureaucrats.

It may, of course, be that in this society we have gone too far down the
slippery slope so far as education is concerned, and it is too late to
reform it.  If so we are, I think, doomed.  But there is no alternative
to assuming this is not so and battling on hopefully.

This turned out to be more long-winded than I intended, and it is not about
music itself.  But it is about its survival, so, after some hesitation, I
am forwarding it with apologies for its length.

Peter Harzem