In a recent article published by the Texas State University Star on Float Fest, I was a bit confused. The article seemed a shallow assessment on the issue facing Martindale and the prospect of either denying or approving the permit for Float Fest. But then, it’s an opinion article which is constitutionally rife with confirmation bias, and true to that format it introduces info-data supporting the author’s views and rejects anything contrary, so it can be and should be read as such without harm. The author goes on to posture the rights and privileges of those who would benefit from FloatFest, and I expect she may reap the benefits of sticking to one safe moral absolute, maybe even benefiting by popularity and perhaps a free ticket to Float Fest?
In the article the author cites the event as a “rite of passage” by students and locals, and “persnickety residents” who she characterized as non-essential and don’t really have the right to say anything. Then there was her assessments “One of the complainants, Tom Goynes, co-owner of San Marcos River Retreat in Caldwell, opposes the festival because he claims it hurts his business. Hurting one business, however, is a small price to pay for the $12.3 million generated.” What I find unsettling is that the author’s scepticism lays a very mutated version of Consequentialist morality; you know, the killing of one person to save ten people argument. So in this scenario, who is the greater good? It’s clearly not the community at large, but instead a narrowly focused group of people profiting while taking advantage of very few regulations to limit their options in making that profit. There are volumes of legal precedent that would suggest sacrificing a long standing individual’s business is not a risk you’d want to take.
This was the first time I had any insight into how much this festival actually earned. I didn’t realize we’re talking millions, wow, so what’s the problem? An event that spans a single weekend and pulls in $12M is struggling with trash?
