Declaration of Human Rights: Article 2
: "The aim of every political association is the conservation of natural and inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression. "
Article 13: " For the maintenance of the public force and for administrative expenses, a contribution Communication is essential. It must be equally distributed among all citizens in proportion to their means. "
Article 14: " All citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves or by their representatives, the necessity of the public contribution, to consent freely, to follow the manual and determine its proportion, basis, collection and duration. "
After reading these three articles, I find it hard to understand immiscion of politics in the field of culture. Do they have a legitimacy to spend the money says "public" in this area ? "The goal of any political association" ... it is well to consider that any deal that local government is a political association ... "Is the conservation of natural and inalienable rights of man. "... In general, the "conservation" is the act of preserving an element in a constant state .... what are the rights defined in the declaration ... rather such rights and social, which have nothing natural and indefeasible. Finally it is clear that the delineation of political boundaries is expressed well in this sentence.
Gold notes that it does? First of all wars have likely distorted the role of "policy" defined by the thinkers of the Enlightenment which sought to provide a response to the introduction of democracy to replace "humanely" absolute power ... Gold major politicians are primarily men fight ... France's history and holds "great war leader" ... who have become "great politicians" as Napoleon and De Gaulle. In wartime, any foreign invasion threatens our 4 rights, "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression."
But in peacetime, every politician trying to make history. How can he do except to use its power to influence the course of events in the lives of citizens ... ignoring the reference to "human rights"? And this is the beginning of our troubles with the birth of the welfare state where the politician would make it all possible! But replacing the absolute power by another, be it democratic, is it sufficient legitimacy to do what should not be? Take for example the news with the cultural program of the Tournefeuille city, my town of residence. So take the editorial page.
How could anyone accept, as a responsible citizen, such a political commitment to culture: mayor, council, regional council? ... Culture has always been a good means of propaganda in dictatorships. But in France anyway, should we see evil everywhere? What is the definition given to the culture? Let us build on the definition given by UNESCO
"Culture in its broadest sense, is regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or group office. It includes, addition to art and literature, lifestyles, fundamental rights of human beings, value systems, traditions and beliefs. " It seems logical to me ... point of policy intervention in this definition, on the contrary, still this idea of conservation! And yet, in defiance of all principles, and even the law on political expression in Tournefeuille, political action is always present. Besides political interference in effected by the diversion of taxpayers' money for purposes other than preservation of rights, is necessarily suspicious of electioneering ... how do not see a link is compromised when associations receive grants from the powers that be ...? Moreover, this can be found in the anthology of thanks ... complacency as to glorify the Soviet good method.
Indeed, is it really necessary to thank the three local authorities already cited? Is it really necessary to thank the Municipal Services of the town? But what is all this made possible? With the diversion or theft of taxpayer money! What public interest (which the maintenance of rights should I add) he comes out of this politically oriented culture? Why not be thanked simply the only taxpayers who generously fund without the consent of the entire system (politicians and associations)? But as he surely is estimated that taxpayers are forced to finance what politicians have decided, and that all others are cultural or passion, or because it is their job function or serve the public is better thank them!
You find me ironic or aggressive? Excuse me, I do not really find any logic in that culture of political intervention and I am surprised that people are unable to organize independently of political power ... to arise otherwise. But I have no doubt that policies are in association circles of "people familiar with" the power to continue to spend 30% of taxes paid by the taxpayer tournefeuille !!!...
Political power is in its role as a declaration that it is of public interest to preserve a cultural heritage. But by selling his soul, culture is perverted when it is not the instrument of political power? Personally, I think ...
