3.31前最后一帖，issue80

月的心灵故乡UID: 3065354

The speaker asserts that nations should suspend government fundings for arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. I concede that when there are a great number of unemployment, government should decline the fundings of arts to support the citizens. But in my view, the government fundings for arts should never be suspended even the economic condition is not optimistic.

An effective government should firstly concentrate on the issues of people's living conditions and the economy. And whether a nation's citizens can get away from hunger and unemployment is the most important gauge to judge if a government is effective. Providing a stable job and helping people to make a living is the fundamental and essential responsibility for a nation. When the Great Depression came, people's were under poor living conditions and the society was unstable. Some of the governments were toppled down for they could not deal with the problems. For this reason, if a government can not deal with the issues perfectly, it will finally lose the voters and be reversed. But if a government and leader can guide the citizens come over the problem, it would be forver memorized and appraised by people just like President Roosevelt. Thus when a nation’s economy is in a desperate situation such as a lot of citizens are hungry and unemployed, a resposible government should place people’s living conditions at the first place and other fields such as art at the second place or even behind.

However, a nation should firstly support its economy does not mean that the field of art could be ignored and the fundings for arts be suspended. As I claimed above, when the depression came, the living conditions of arts and the artist were also serious. What's more, they can hardly survive when there are few fundings and the market is not prosperity. As people all know, the art is an important part of people's lives and the world. It is a living soul descends by generation and can hardly ressurect once extinct. People will alsways see bad example that the arts are ruined in a depression or war, lacking protection from government, just like the damage of heritage of Old Babylon in Iraq in 2003. It is really a heratrending loss in the history of arts and construction. As people can predict, once the fundings for arts are suspended, the development of arts will be impeded and even in danger. A nation’s economy can restore but the lost arts can not. People will forever lose a field or even more of arts to appreciate and enjoy.

In my view, when significant numbers of citizens are hungry or unemployed, the fundings for arts and other fields should decline in some degree but the support for arts should never cease. The government should give more fundings to support the economy and create more jobs for the unemployed thus to help the poor people to continue their lives. At the same time, they should also spare some fundings for the arts and artists to survive, and the exact number of fundings should be based on reality. What's more, government could encourage the artists to create more articles for people to enjoy. On one hand, it can act as the artists earn their own living. On the other hand, it can cheer up the people be in hunger and unemployment to pick up hopes again.

To sum up, though I agree with the contention that the gurantee for people to make a living is the first issue for a responsible government, I do not agree with the statement that the fundings for arts should suspend for this reason. And as an effective government, it should
balance properly between these two.





——————————————————————————






求好运，加油！