# FILE NAME: 00001624.soc
# TITLE: Is there a good reason for the state to fund the arts? [69e988e4c99cafa8ecb758724a37218a]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group has decided that the state should not fund the arts. The arts are a luxury that should not be funded by the government. The government has a responsibility to spend tax payers money on things that will benefit the country as a whole, rather than spending it on the arts. The arts are subjective, and so the government should not be funding them, as not everyone will agree with the choice of art that is being funded. The arts are also not something that people need, and so the government should not be funding them. The government should be funding things that people need, such as the NHS, education and the police. The arts are a luxury, and so the government should not be funding them.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The arts should not be funded by the state. The arts are a luxury. The government is there to provide the most for the greatest number of people, and this will be achieved by funding for sectors such as the NHS, education and the police. Challenges - Groupthink - Differing opinions - Getting people on the same page
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Therefore, the group has agreed that they believe that the state should not fund the arts. Arts are a luxury that the state should not fund. There are many things that the state should fund and the government should be using taxpayer’s money wisely, to invest into things that everyone needs and not luxuries that everyone enjoys. The arts are subjective, and so the state should not be funding them as different people have different opinions on what they would enjoy. This means that the government may fund something which only few people will enjoy, rather than investing money in education or the health sector, which all of the public would benefit from. However, some people do value art more than others and some need art more than others. Therefore, the state should not be funding the arts. The arts are not a necessity, and so should not be funded by the government. The health, education and policing are all far more important than the arts are, so the arts should not receive state funding.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group has decided that the state should not fund the arts. The arts are a luxury that should not be funded by the government. The government has a responsibility to spend tax payers money on things that will benefit the country as a whole, rather than spending it on the arts. The arts are subjective, and so the government should not be funding them, as not everyone will agree with the choice of art that is being funded. The arts are also not something that people need, and so the government should not be funding them. The government should be funding things that people need, such as the NHS, education and the police. The arts are a luxury, and so the government should not be funding them. The final consensus statement reflects all of the views expressed by the participants. It agrees with the views of Participants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and so it is a fair consensus statement. The views of Participants 1 and 3 are slightly in conflict, as Participant 1 thinks that the arts are something that people need, whereas Participant 3 thinks that the arts are not something that people need. However, the final consensus statement reflects the views of Participants 2 and 4, as they both think that the arts are a
1: 1,2,4,3
1: 3,1,4,2
1: 2,1,3,4
1: 4,1,3,2
1: 3,4,1,2