BBadger wrote:Now with all that garbage cleared out:
The point, for those who missed it, is not the exclusion of the less financially well-off (the "financially unenriched"), nor some kind of means to make up for the LIT as was mentioned way earlier in the thread and dismissed. Rather that, fundamentally, luxuries should not be subsidized. It's more about the principle of this concept, rather than the cost.
Nothing excludes the less financially well-off from attending the event: you just save your money over time like we all do for what we can't afford at the moment. Apply that to any luxury in your life: chocolate, booze, vacations, hookers, whatever. Should those luxuries be subsidized too? I don't think so. Nor is this about repayment or getting one's money's worth from peoples' attendance. This is not a present-exchange, nor should we see that 5% or whatever as some sort of payment for services. It's not about that.
I also don't believe that the elimination of the LIT affects the "social experiment" that is Burning Man in any meaningful way. The LIT doesn't really encourage the attendance of more diverse demographics, because people -- in any financial situation that can contemplate going to BM -- can save money over time to attend, LIT or not. In that respect, we are all equal. Burning Man is not going anywhere, and if you don't attend this specific year, there is always another year to attend. Even then, assuming that a person's attendance is critically dependent on the ticket price, eliminating LIT program would only reduce attendance to about once every 1.5 years as compared to baseline. That is not significant, and only the ticket cost. So what of real value does the LIT even bring to the table? Nothing. Be a responsible saver, and you'll be going to TTitD just as others do.
And for all those who do want to fund an LIT program: make the LIT program a donation-operated program. Then it's actual charity -- something willingly given -- not a tax. You can sponsor the LIT program, and it would then actually be about gifting not taxing/subsidizing.
Zeke Chaparral wrote:One of the many positive things about the low income ticket program is that it at least partially insulates Burning Man from being considered merely an elite vacation destination.
Some people who get low income tickets might possibly be able to scrape by and buy a regular priced ticket, but that would preclude them from contributing to camp infrastructure/supplies that allow the camp to be interactive with the BRC public. If low income recipients are only to crush aluminum cans or clean the floor of center camp, they might possibly feel relegated as service workers instead of being considered socially worthy of contributing to the fun and magic of Burning Man and thus maybe should be required to wear specially colored hats and aprons denoting their low income status?
I personally have no problem with a low income recipient tending a camp's bar that is open to the BRC public or someone who has more time than money and thus spends countless hours sifting through the craigslist ads and drives all over their regional locality in order to procure the camp's stuff at the best possible price so the camp can make the best possible interactive opportunities for the BRC public.
Also, the sentiment that the opportunity to the low income program should be available on a one time basis suggests that a person's chronic low income situation is an indicator of deficiency of character. Take into account recently credentialed teachers that must work a sporadic schedule for very low pay while paying student loans because the bottom fell out of the hiring of teachers while the person was halfway through the university/internship process. The districts have not hired any more teachers (none) this year than they did last. Should these people abandon their dreams of a teaching career due to the recent jobless recoveries and go back to construction jobs that no longer exist either?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests