ASHEVILLE — Why isn’t Asheville’s newest attraction, the Carolina Country Theater, being operated by a government agency?
If you believe in the virtues of a limited government, confined to the protection of individual rights and the coodination of a few select public goods, you already know the answer to this question. Based on your knowledge and principles, you know that because no one has a natural right to have musical performances staged for him, and because concert-goers can easily be charged for the privilege, there is simply no justification for government action — meaning force — in this case.
But if you don’t recognize the importance of limiting the use of force in human affairs, if you don’t know the conditions that justify government involvement, then you can be led astray by arguments about public benefits. If your test for government involvement is simply that some element of the public may benefit from the transfer of funds, then you are, to paraphrase James Madison, at sea without a rudder.
Consider the country-music case. Obviously, many people enjoy the genre. If Asheville’s new musical theater is successful, it will likely attract patrons not just from among the locals but also from visitors to the region, thus potentially boosting cash flows for local restaurants, shops, and other businesses. Moreover, if some economic-development pundits are correct, having a vibrant local music scene may help to attract young, talented professionals and entrepreneurs to an area, boosting its potential for job creation and dynamic growth.
Indeed, all of these arguments, and more besides, are being heard on the other side of the state, in the Northeastern region, by those attempting to defend government subsidies for a new country-music-themed entertainment complex headlined by Dolly Parton’s brother Randy. There is certainly a case to be made in response, on grounds of aesthetics and practicality, that the project should receive not one red cent from taxpayers. But even if it were to be wildly successful, that would not justify government subsidy.
Governments are not businesses. They are not charities. They are a separate category of social institutions based on the use of coercion. When you mix aspects of these very different institutions together — when governments try to act like businesses or charities — you get corruption and injustice. If lots of people enjoy Randy Parton’s musical stylings and wish to pay for the privilege of hearing them, that’s no skin off my nose. If there is a demand for artistic expression of any kind, there is a market for it. That means someone will be paid by willing customers to provide it. I don’t have to care about a genre, or even to know about it. It is quite literally none of my business.
But if I as a taxpayer am being forced to “invest” my money in an enterprise, that is a different story. What if I dislike country music? What if I’d prefer a taxpayer-subsidized outlet for Broadway show tunes? Or opera? Or Gregorian chants? Choosing among musical genres to favor with government largesse is not something politicians should be doing. Let them focus on legitimate needs — keeping the streets safe for nightlife of all sorts — and the rest will work out fine.
As will, most likely, the new Carolina Country Theater, a properly private endeavor.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.