194 Chapter 8
is somehowevil anddiscriminatory,andthereforean attackon civillibertiesandequal
treatmentof everycitizenunderthe law.In otherwords,Strossenconjuresup a pedantic
pretextfor invokingthe law to fightagainstmultipleattemptsby free-marketersto priva-
tize artsfundingto the fullestextent.^124 Followingin the pedantry,Heinspronounces
conservativeRepublicanopponentsof NEAfundingto be guiltyof yet anotherdouble
standardas well.Religiousconservativescall for the de-fundingof offensiveartworkon
the groundsthattaxpayersshouldnot be forcedto subsidizespeechtheyfindoffensive,
to be sure.Yet,arguesHeins,taxessimultaneouslyfinancethe creationof publicparks,
“public” schools,“public” librariesfull of offensivebooks,andvariousotherpublic
worksprojectsthatsometaxpayersmayfindoffensive.^125 BecauseHeinstakesit for
grantedthattheseenterprisesdeservetax funding,Heinsproclaimsthatthereis nothing
inherentlywrongin forcingpeople,at gunpoint,to financeenterprisesthatdisgustthem.
Accordingto Heins’s argument,if you objectto financingsomespitefulartworkor some
wastefulpublic-worksproject,you oughtto suckit up; it is for the publicinterestanyway.
Thisargumentverysuccessfullyshutsup mostconservatives,as theyfear the prospectof
statingpubliclythattheseothersocialistprojectsshouldlikewisehavetheirtax funding
discontinued.Thisintimidatingdebatetacticdoesnot neutralizeme, however.No public
worksprojectshouldbe financedthroughtax extortion—period.
Contraryto Frohnmayer,Brustein,Strossen,and Heins,free speechsimplymeansone
canemployhis ownprivateproperty—as wellas the property of other consenting
adults—to transmitwhatevermessageshe wantsto otherconsentingparties.Freespeech
doesnot mandatethat if Cassieis not willingto buy my paintings,thenI am rightto have
governmentofficialspointgunsat her andthreaten,“Buythesepaintingsor eat lead!”
Thisgivesthe lie to GeorgeOrwell’s importation,“the fact that mostof the pressis owned
by a few peopleoperatesin muchthe samewayas statecensorship.”^126
Further,as AlanSteinweis’s researchon the ThirdReichsubstantiates,government
financingof artworkis itselfan effortby the Stateto manipulatethe public’s opinionsand
tastes.Whenthe StatemulctsmoneyfromCassieto financethe productionof art that
repulsesCassie,thatleavesher withmuchless cashto spendon the art thatshe loves.
Thisdepletionof fundingfor the art that Cassiefavors,in turn,reducesthe opportunities
of Cassie’s favoriteartiststo createart thatCassiewouldactuallyappreciateenoughto
financeconsensually.Likewise,the ThirdReich’s abilityto apportiontax moneyto fund
artworkmeantthatit couldsap investmentcapitalawayfromformsof art it considered
too “Jewish”—therebyeradicatingthe marketfor such“Jewishart”—whileit invested
moremoneyinto the creationof art that was considered“non-Jewish.”
Thereis an eerieparallelbetweenthe ThirdReich’s art patronageandthe FTP’s. The
ThirdReichfinancedpropagandisticart that glorifiednationalsocialismand vilifiedJew-
ish industrialists.Likewise,TheFTPfinanceda propagandisticstageproductionthat
glorifiedinternationalsocialismandvilifiedindustrialistsin general.Rememberfrom
BookOneof our trilogythatthe ThirdReichemployedthe systemof tax-fundedpublic
librariesto promotethe ideasit preferredand demotethe ideasit disliked;the samesort
of manipulationis conductedby governmentsassignedwithfinancingartiststhroughtax
money.Harvard UniversityreferencelibrarianMargaretStiegDalton mentionsthat
underthe ThirdReich,the “politicalcharacterof the publiclibrarywasemphasized;the
ideaof the Volkwasintegrated.”^127 Underthe Nazis,writesMatthewBattles,govern-
ment-employedlibrarians“joinedin the greatand mysticaltaskof fashioningthe German
peopleintoaVolk.... As definedby the Reich,the job of the librarywouldbe to control
the dangerous,the bourgeois,the effeteanddissipatingenergiesof reading,to helpthe
Volkfindusefulinformationwithoutdegradingits ‘spirit.’” The librariansof the govern-
ment-controlledlibrariesput togetherwerekeenon “eliminatingtheirchiefrivalsin the
small-scalecommerciallendinglibraries.. .” (emphasisadded).MatthewBattlesobservesthe