It is our position that intelligence can be taught to a great enough extent as to catapult an ordinary man into the ranks of geniuses.

It is our position that intelligence is usually asymetrical. A genius is not superlative in all categories. To wit, Albert Einstein had difficulty driving a car and tying his shoes.

It is interesting to note, in the case of some individuals, like Emily Dickinson and Van Gogh, they were severely disturbed individuals completely unfit for life. Without being born into a family with enough wealth to support them, there would be not a single line of poetry from Dickinson and not a single painting from Van Gogh. These are just two of the most obvious examples. What is to be done? I reject, completely and totally, the idea of public funding for the more esoteric branches of the arts that are less likely to be enjoyed by the public. It is simply unethical to extract wealth from the public to pay too much money for things they don't even want. The government is in a habit of allowing itself to be overcharged, and in art this tendency is easily observed.

No, I do not wish to change our laws. I want to change our society. The laws must follow the societal change, not attempt to lead it. Sometimes, if the issue is large and pressing, such as the need for civil rights or rapid economic reform, it may neccessary to ram the law through and then have society slowly adapt to it.

Instead, I call for the return of patronage. A wealthy patron takes artists under thier wing, and allows them to produce. The artist may work freely and without the ire and accusations of being a social parasite, and the patron can take partial credit and ownership for everything created.