So many debates over this which is pointless. We need to educate the young and in doing so those artifacts have to be stored somewhere. Wherever that "somewhere" is, it is going to cost money. This is just something we have to deal with. I am fine with paying for these sites.
Museums, zoos, and science centers are important to a broad range of learners in society. These places are accessible to those who can't/don't/or won't make connections in a traditional classroom. They also serve as a supplement to classroom and life-long learning. Because public school funding has already taken a hit in this economy, institutions that provide that missing content should be available to communities. They are great resources for students who do not know about the possibilities that are available in the world. These institutions are not solely relying on government assistance, and in most cases match or surpass government aid through business grants, donations, and sales. Government funding can be minimal in a lot of cases, but is still need to support and maintain the institutions. They should continue to be supported through taxes for educating a broad range of people over lifetimes.
The work these institutions do is not done by other educational institutions. Usually each has a specific focus so that visitors know how to locate an appropriate place for learning about their choice of topic. Such operations tend to draw more people from beyond their immediate area as well as providing a service to their local community.
All these things are a part of education, and education should be available for everyone who wants it. Anyone who wants to use them can use them. Most people benefit from them. In the interest of not letting a minority control the majority, I would say that most people are ok with having publically funded, educational things like this. I also don't think that they cause individual tax payers that much (a few bucks per person per year?)
Cultural institutions should be funded with tax money. These institutions are created for the good of the public, so the public can come and learn about science, art, animals, etc. They also serve as research and conservation centers for the community. These types of institutions were created in the past to provide the community at large with access to items that only the rich were able to afford and enjoy.
I can actively remember attending museums and zoos as a form of learning. If we fund schools, why should we not fund museums? There are displays and exhibits that schools cannot duplicate, like dinosaur bones, art pieces and live animals in simulated habitats. Without them, our students only suffer in areas, like art, which have been severely under-funded already.
Tax dollars go to fund schools, colleges and universities, and they should also be used to support museums, zoos and science centers. It is not just about giving our young the education they deserve, but, in the long run, it helps us all. Educated future generations mean the continuation of society and economic growth and stability. This allows for the parents and adults to have retirement and government benefits in their golden years.
Zoos, museums, and science centers offer cultural and educational opportunities to all taxpayers. Not all taxpayers wish to take advantage of these opportunities, but that does not mean that they could not. I believe that the future depends on our children growing up to be educated and well-rounded. If we do not have access to these kinds of facilities--or access is so expensive only the wealthy can visit them--then we are hurting ourselves in the long run.
Museums, zoos, and science centers provide a public good for all of society and therefore it is justified that taxpayer funds help these institutions. Furthermore, many of these institutions would be unprofitable if they were to stand alone and are thus in need of tax funds to help keep their doors open.
Zoos, museums, and science centers should be funded by taxpayers' money, because they are incredible learning experiences, and the public should have free access to such valuable learning tools. When I was a teenager, my favorite places were the Detroit Zoo, the Detroit Institute of the Arts, and the U of M Exhibit Museum of Natural History. All were free, so, I could go as often as I wanted. Going to the zoo improved my geography, the art museum improved my photography, and the museum of natural history was fun.
The goal of a museum, zoo or science center is to accumulate and display scientific and natural resources. Privatizing them would damage the scientific value of the collections because they would have to remain profitable and would be heavily influenced by the corporation that operates the display. This could potentially lead to censorship or bias. By having the museums operated by publicly funded non-profit groups, censorship and bias by corporations can be more easily avoided, and the scientific value of the displays becomes greater.
The only way to write history is to fund it. I personally would not mind if part of my tax money was used to fund the very institutions that would be used to secure a part of history. Our children and our children's children deserve the right to know what happened in the past to make this world what it is.
Recreational facilities are given to citizens by the government free of cost but the government bears some cost for it and it should be funded by the taxpayers' money because they are the ultimate beneficiaries of such facilities. Same is true for the science centers as advancement in technology will ultimately benefit the taxpayer. So I would say that both of them should be funded through taxpayers' money.
I believe that zoos, museums, and science centers are vital assets to the growth of children. Children greatly benefit from trips to these public centers, and I do think that designating tax money towards places like these is absolutely necessary. If our tax money supports criminals, why not support the learning of children?
In the same way that public schools are funded with taxpayer money, so should museums, science centers and zoos, as long as they comply with the separation of church and state (i.e. not a Creationist museum). These centers exist to educate the general public, including children, and this is already happening overseas - the Natural History Museum is free of charge in London, England. Keeping these centers funded with public money is also a way to foster a community-wide education so that residents can voice their opinions and concerns on the content of these centers, thus improving the experience for everyone.
They are worthwhile investments. They are centers of enrichment, especially for our children. I can think of worse things that we do financially support with taxpayers' money. These establishments are venues that are open to all of the public and they enhance the lives of everyone who uses them. They should remain part of the social structure and be supported by citizens.
If it were up to companies, corporations or just donations, some things would be destined to disappear. There are a lot of different museums and research centers that would have problems to get funding on their own. This is about achieving the greater good for everybody, and the government must choose where the money goes.
The function of the government should be the framework upon which a society operates not an independent actor in our culture. All of the listed functions should be subject to the laws of supply and demand to determine their utility to the people. It is our job as individuals to inspire the next generation rather than let factors often outside of your control (the votes of others) put a price tag on culture.
If we create a climate where government can take monetary and fiscal responsibility of private or non private institutions, particularily zoo's, they will become vulnrable to economic down turns
Government should stick to the necessities and stay out of the extraneous items that add so much to the cost of government. Let some rich people and families donate, build , and provide for extra facilities such as zoos, science centers, etc..
One of the big problems with things being funded by taxpayers' money is that the government then wants to be in charge of them and run them. This is a problem for a few reasons. First of all, look at the deficit the government currently has. They can not run themselves, so what makes them think that they could run anything else? Secondly, they would then try to say what could or could not be displayed at these places. There would be too much censorship going on.
Museums, zoos, and science centers should not be funded by taxpayers' money because every citizen does not use these facilities. Taxpayers' money should go for things that we all benefit from, like fixing roads and bridges and making it safe to drive in the cities where we live. But if I don't ever go to the zoo, why should I have to pay for the zoo? I shouldn't have to pay for recreational facilities unless I choose to go there and then I can pay admission to get in.
These venerable and good institutions need funding, but they should not get it from the taxpayers. Taking money from someone and saying that they now must fund a museum that they don't like, or a zoo that they don't agree with, or so on, is wrong. Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect that it is 'sinful' to take money from someone to force them to fund something they don't believe in. These institutions should be funded solely by people who believe in them.