I don’t agree it’s a minority view. The majority expresses its views through its elected leaders. Why should I cater to your views, views which cannot garner legislative support and get expressed as laws? I say it’s your views that represent a fringe: the vast majority of people would agree that ownership includes the right to destroy.
Has anyone *tried *to get this particular law passed? You can’t really say, “Everyone agrees with me because nobody voted for your idea,” if nobody’s ever had a chance to vote on the idea.
Also, who’s asking you to cater to anyone’s views? Unless you’ve got a priceless work of art and a can of gasoline handy, nobody’s asking you to change any aspect of your behavior as a result of this debate.
Once upon a time, yes, I thought that was true. But then it turned out that burning property (the American flag) WAS a speech dispute. And that despite the strong feelings many people had about protecting the flag, it was a matter of speech to destroy it.
So explain to me, please, why your protest against American policies, expressed by burning the flag, is legitimate speech, but my protest against rich people monopolizing art work is invalid if I express it by burning a Vermeer.
Because from where I sit, that looks like your decision is based in some measure on the fact that you like one message.
So what? In each case, you’re contemplating a law forbidding me from destroying my property, an act that I say has expressive value. Why can’t I find solace in the First Amendment?
Ask The Hamster King. If the personal involvement is required to make this debate meaningful, and the issue of popular support is of merit, he, not I, raised it.
But my words were in response to his. I offered them up to a person who implicitly accepted the validity of the underlying premise by his own words. If you don’t like that premise, ignore my post just as you ignored his. Why is mine the one that draws your attention?
My argument was in reply to this paragraph. If you endorse this paragraph, then my argument is my answer. If not, you may ignore it as it was not intended for you.
How should you be stopped from burning the Fort McHenry flag? Court order, backed up by marshals with guns. Same way we stop people from doing all sorts of things.
Simply because some of us believe there is a difference. It’s an opinion. Some of us believe that burning a Vermeer is to the detriment of the whole world, while no one feels the same way about a K-Mart vinyl flag. It’s the same as why it’s okay to use dynamite to blast a pass in a mountainside…but not to use dynamite to carve the Coca Cola logo on Half-Dome in Yosemite Valley.
Some of us believe that some things can legitimately be claimed as public property.
If you don’t, then, shrug, that’s a disagreement. Do you really need to be told this?
Not the message, but the object. Enough people like Vermeers to put them into a different class than cheap vinyl flags. I can also demolish an anonymous frame house to build a supermarket…but I can’t demolish the birthplace of Harry S Truman.
You can’t use the First Amendment to demolish the Truman birthplace, any more than you can use the First Amendment to demolish the Federal Courthouse in downtown Forth Worth. Both buildings are public property.
You may not like the Takings Clause, but it’s there, and justifies the taking of some property. You could argue the specifics, but the principle exists. There are some limitations to your own use of your own property.
Ok, it’s a bad analogy. People don’t analogise to property at all well. (Nor, for that matter, does a tattoo analogise particularly well to destruction.)
I’m not sure who’s got the affirmative side here. You opened this debate with the words “But I argue that there is no legal, moral, or ethical principle that suggests that artwork cannot be owned, and, once owned, disposed of as the user wishes.” That looks like an affirmative statement to me. Now we seem to be debating not whether such a moral principle exists, but whether it has sufficiently broad agreement across the country at large as to be a moral imperative. This is quite a different matter. (Analogously, if I were to argue that the prevailing moral imperative with regard to legal abortion means that there’s no moral or ethical principle against it, I’d be dead wrong. The principle exists and has been well articulated, regardless of how much agreement it commands.)
However, if we’re making morality a question simply of popular agreement, I still think you’d find that the majority of people were against the destruction of art by its owners should it ever come to the crunch. A thought experiment: the Vatican announces that it’s rethought its whole stance on devotional art and now finds it mere idolatry. A programme of destruction is announced - the Sistine chapel is to be whitewashed, statues to be smashed, paintings to be slashed to ribbons, altar pieces to be burnt.
You’re view, presumably, is that the international response would be muted. A few might protest, but the majority of people would shrug and move on, muttering, “Well, it is theirs and theirs alone, I suppose.” I can’t see that happening. I think there would be widespread outrage and condemnation, a widely expressed sentiment that “they can’t do that” and serious attempts not just to buy them off (after all, this is a matter of faith) but to stop them outright. The majority of people, in other words, would feel that they were being deprived of something valuable and had a right to prevent that from happening.
I mean we can’t know for sure - but if you tell me you honestly believe that the world’s response to the Vatican’s total destruction of its artworks would not be protest, condemnation and resistance based on people’s belief that they had an interest in the continuing existence of all this great art then I will believe you.
On the First Amendment question, there are two points. One is that I’m not sure I do agree that you have a “perfect” First Amendment right to destroy the Vermeer. If such a case has already come before the Supreme Court, well and good. Otherwise I’m not sure if you mean that the jurisprudence is beyond question, or that the majority of scholars who’ve looked at this question agree with you, or what? It’s not as if there aren’t limitations on First Amendment rights, in those situations where it’s felt that the harm from the exercise of the free speech is too great.
The second point, of course, is that I’m not a citizen of the US. In discussions of societal ethics and morality I find First Amendment decisions to be interesting commentary but hardly decisive. You’ve already pointed out that ethical and moral principles should be universal, after all. Going back to the question of broad support validating moral principles (or invalidating them through absence) is the criterion broad support in the US only, or would broad support in, say, China suffice to show that a principle is a moral imperative, or that a principle exists if that’s the point at issue?
On the point of display, I’ve already said that the world’s interest in the existence of great art doesn’t extend to control of how or whether it is displayed. This is, after all, a question of balancing competing interests. I agree (did you ever doubt it?) the the owner of an artwork has substantial interest in its disposition, and also that society as a whole has a substantial interest in limiting state interference in the life of the individual. As such, while I’d find a decision to hide the Vermeer from public view highly regrettable, I wouldn’t support a state forcing its display. I would support the public’s use of social pressure to persuade and encourage you to display it, and I would support the use of public funds to, for example, offer tax breaks to private owners who display their art publicly.
This is because there is a fundamental difference between destruction and merely restricting access. Once the art is destroyed it is gone for ever; by contrast if it spends a few years in a vault that’s regrettable but there’s every chance it will one day be on view again. The irreversible effects of destruction are what give the public right to claim an interest in the art’s continued existence.
(Oh, and speaking as someone who appreciates rhetoric the use of the word “pretend” in the quote above is magnificent.)
Apoligies, I’ve snipped a quote between my first and second paragraphs. The paragraph beginning, “I’m not sure who’s got the affirmative side here” should follow this:
I thought that this worth addressing separately. I assume you have, of course, seen art which you found uplifting. Which enhanced your quality of life. Which enriched you. Can we agree at least that this art did have value to you and not merely scare-quotes “value” at that? That there is at least one piece of art that you would pay me actual cash money not to delete permanently from your consciousness with my Dis-Kultur-O-Matic ray, should I have such a thing and threaten you with it? (Or to put it another way: would you not take me to court and sue me if did use the DKOM, seeking to be made whole?)
If so, did your enjoyment of that value diminish the value the owner had in the art? Was the owner’s enjoyment of their property in any way the less because you looked at the art and found your quality of life improved? Or did the owner’s value in the art increase because you looked at it? I can’t see that. Ownership of art does not extend to owning the improved quality of life of anyone who experiences it. But the existence of both is dependent on the existence of the art.
Even if the owner decides that their enjoyment of the art is best maximised by destroying it, that destruction takes something of value away from you. Something that was not, in fact, the owner’s to take. Therefore they have to compensate you should they destroy it.
The owner’s enjoyment of their property is diminished by the public’s insistence that they be allowed to enjoy the art without paying for it.
I buy a piece of art, I own it, I put it in my basement. The public has no right to insist that I put it on public display so they can enjoy it. Perhaps their lives would be enhanced by seeing the art - tough noogies, I want to keep it where only me and my friends can see it. Same if I want to burn it - I am not denying the public the right to enjoy it, since that right didn’t exist when I had it hidden in the basement.
If the public wants to enjoy my art, they have to pay for it - the just compensation mentioned in the US Constitution. They can get together and buy it from me and put it in a museum and look at it, or pay me an annual rental to keep me from burning it. If I turn down the offer, then it is just a matter of you upping the ante until I say Yes. If you can’t go that high, then the value I get from destroying it is greater than the value you get from looking at it, and value is maximized if I burn it.
ISTM that saying I can’t dispose of my property if I want is an attempt to get something for nothing. You want to use it without paying for it. That’s quite common, but it doesn’t make it right.
Who says they shouldn’t pay for it? Most museums have entry fees. Paying for access to art is perfectly reasonable.
I agree completely.
You’re denying the public’s right to enjoy it forever, whereas it might reasonably be expected to come out of your basement after your demise. Or after you change your mind. Or after you’re offered tax incentives to display it. The permanency of destruction is the only thing that makes it permissible to stay your hand.
What if the museum decides to destroy it? They’re run by a board, not by referenda.
As I said, this is an extortionist’s charter. If your public policy permits rent-seeking this flagrant, it’s bad public policy. It’s also circular - the value obtainable through destruction is only obtainable if we accept your absolute right to destroy it - which is the point at issue.
The thing I want (viz, the opportunity for spiritual enrichment derived from experiencing the art) isn’t yours in the first place, and you have no right to take it from me.
It is only permissible to stay my hand if you compensate me, as I think we agree.
Well, that’s true, but we have not established that the public has the right to prevent me from destroying it, which is (as you say) the point at issue.
I’m not taking anything from you by denying you the opportunity to benefit from my property without sufficiently compensating me, as the example of art in the basement shows. If you can require me to allow you to view my art, you can require me to loan you my car or live in my house.
If you want to offer me compensation on which we can mutually agree, that’s perfectly fine. If you just say “you got it, I want it” that’s not (IMO).
One advantage to the free market is that it lets people show what they really mean. If it really does refresh your soul to look at my pictures, then you can express how valueable it is to you to have your soul refreshed by offering me a concrete reimbursement for doing it. Then we can balance that against how much value I put on burning it, and see who really means what he says.
Shodan, it’s not a question of “requiring you to allow me to view the art”. That’s not what I or anyone else is arguing. It’s about requiring you not to destroy the art, which is a very different thing.
On the general concept that you can tell how much people value something by how much money they offer, let’s go back to the tribe in the OP. The museum tells them they can buy it back, otherwise it gets destroyed. So the tribe go back, call a big meeting and get everyone to dig deep. All assets that can be monetised are monetised. All the money that can be borrowed is borrowed. All the gifts, grants and charity that can be solicited are solicited. All income, from whatever source, is pledged to this cause. The tribe utterly impoverish and permanently indebt themselves. And at the end of the process they have raised, for a round number, £10 Million. £10 Million, then, is the measure of what the art means to them. It’s Monday
Sorry, say the museum on Monday afternoon. Destroying it would be worth more than that to us.
Well, the tribe are heartbroken. There is literally no more they can do. If they had more, they’d give it. They don’t, so they can’t. But then, a miracle! On Tuesday morning, a reclusive billionaire crashes his plane on their land. They pull him from the wreckage. In his gratitude, he writes a cheque for £200 Million. They go back to the museum and offer £100 Million
Ah, say the museum. Now you’re talking turkey. It’s yours.
So, what happened between Monday, when the tribe offered £10 mill, and Tuesday, when they offered £100 mill?
a) The extent to which the tribe valued the continued existence of their art changed overnight.
b) The tribe found access to more money.
Which was the true measure of how much the tribe valued the art?
a) The amount they offered on Monday (>100% of their wealth)
b) the amount they offered on Tuesday (c.50% of their wealth)?
Well, we definitely have marshals and guns. What we don’t have is a law that says I can’t burn the Ft. McHenry flag, assuming I own it. Indeed, what stronger political statement could there be? If burning an ordinary American flag shows disdain for American policies, then surely burning the flag that represents so pivotal a moment in American history shows the utmost disdain and contempt for American existence. Since I clearly have a First Amendment right to burn that flag, on what basis would a court order me not to?
Yes. But even on this enlightened board, we’ve had posters express a dramatically wide range of opinions. Some are backed up by extrinsic evidence and are thus fodder for debate, in which connected series of supported statements breathe life into opinions and establish them as defensible propositions. Other opinions remain simply the province of the holder. In general, if support for a claim is, “Well, it’s my opinion,” and there the tale ends, then the opinion is what debaters call a gratuitous assertion.. In debate, a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
So “some of you” believe this about a Vermeer. So what? How does that translate into some sort of recognized ethical or moral principle?
Surely you’re not asserting that merely because you hold an opinion, that opinion somehow ripens into a recognized ethical or moral principle?
No. But I think you’re missing a key element that makes GD different than IMHO. In the latter forum, of course, you would be on solid ground – you’re sharing your opinion. Here, I argue, the coin of the realm is not merely opinion, but opinion buttressed by cited, argued support. To paraphrase Monty Python’s famous skit, an argument is not simply the automatic gainsay of an opposing proposition.
If you own it, and it had no such covenant when you bought it, then sure you can. If you bought it and it already had such a covenant, then I agree, but that agreement is consistent with my view of ownership: you never bought the right to destroy it.
Yes. And as long as they are public property, I certainly agree.
But you seem to be trying to add to the definition of “public property.” You give two unambiguous examples, in which property law clearly vests ownership in a public entity. I of course agree.
But if I bought the Federal Courthouse in downtown Ft. Worth from the federal government, I can certainly destroy it.
Yes. But the Takings Clause is also limited by the requirement that the taking be for a “public use.” So far as I am aware, no authority has ever found that preserving paintings is a “public use.”
But I am open to correction on the matter. What examples are you thinking of?