Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
5 comments:
"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.
Such as senators wasting taxpayers money on stupid fucking laws.
I hate to go all Darwin on this story but im really having a hard time getting fired up about this one. The guy proposing the law states:
Berger said the film-incentive ban should be broadened to include material considered objectionable. He said there should be no First Amendment concerns because the producer would be seeking money from the state government. But he did say that if constitutional questions confused the matter, it would be better not to have a film incentive at all.
If the state wants to create incentives to bring in movie production money it should also be allowed to determine what kind of movies it grants that incentive to. I have no problem with the state behaving as a smart consumer.
yeah, I agree; from your post it sounded like they were trying to censor movies but they're actually just trying to decide who they want to give their subsidies to. Honestly I'm kind of annoyed they're giving subsidies to filmmakers to start with, but I guess that's what happens when different states are in competition for tourist dollars.
So you want to make a movie and a pivotal scene in your film takes place on the golden gate bridge. But your movie makes fun of liberals. Hence the goverment can say we the people of san francisco refuse to let you make your movie (with any of our tax breaks)becuase we do not like your message. So only movies that portray your values can be filmed in your area. This is going to homogenize movies. Now a good counter to that of course is they can film there but not with the tax breaks. Well most films I am guessing rely on those tax breaks - and if the movie decides not to shoot there then the town is hurt economically by the funding that would have come from them shooting their movie there. Movies being filmed are big money to cities. That is why they give these production companies tax breaks in the first place.
Yeah, don’t have a problem with the city of San Francisco refusing to partially subsidize films with a slant against liberals.
As I stated before, cities operate in a free market competing with each other, in this case, for different production companies. Cities are discriminating what kinds of movies they want to support in the way I discriminate between McDonalds and Burger King. Probably the best criticism to levy against this bill is that the state of North Carolina will become less attractive for producing certain kinds of movies presumably depriving the state revenue generated form the production of those kinds of movies.
If it was the case that the city banned the actual production of a movie I might have a problem. However, as it is, this is only an issue about how the city should spend money allocated to subsidizing the production of films.
I should note that on the whole I agree with Darwin that this seems to be a poor use of tax money in general and wouldn’t mind them eliminating this subsidy in its entirety. However, unlike Darwin, I’m quite satisfied with free markets pitting cities against each other in an effort to win over the additional revenue movie production generates. Were Darwin sees waste I see the harmless byproduct of innovation and invention.
Post a Comment