Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
Would you agree that funding for a MMA arena if it had overwhelming majority support would be acceptable? How about a cat museum composed entirely of photos of cats doing funny things? Or a lawn bowling stadium?
I don't see in any way how entertainment is a public good, and therefore should not receive public support. Popularity does not equal public benefit. It just means popularity. I don't believe it is the government's role to subsidize goods that are a matter of taste. If so, we should be sending subsidy cheques to Activision for making Call of Duty 3. This is a serious argument. If people want a subsidy for watching flames games, I think the same subsidy should be applied to other forms of entertainment, including video games, movies, etc etc.
|
The primary difference between a stadium and the examples you chose is the multi use element of a stadium vs the very specific forms you list. A stadium can be seen as a piece of public infrastructure that allows for concerts, trade shows, sporting events, etc. The problem I see comes up when sports teams coerce, or use connections with politicians to subsidize their private gains with public funds.