stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (12/05/84)
> I think there still is a concensus that > anyone's education is to everyone's benefit. A few people who seem > to disagree make a lot of noise, but I doubt that the noise does more > than disturb the peace of mind of those who believe in reason. > > Martin Taylor The question is not whether someone's education is good, but who is going to foot the bill. My wife and I have not had children, in large part because we don't think we can afford them. Please tell me at what point I incurred an obligation to pay for other people's children? Foo on your "reason", Mr. Taylor. This is the "reason" of common thieves who would use MY money to finance what THEY want to do. HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can, and only get it free if you can't afford it? This is what we currently do with court-appointed lawyers. My guess is that everyone wants a piece of the "free" pie. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (12/05/84)
> You incurred the obligation the moment some doctor who probably began > his or her education in a public school slapped you on the butt and > introduced you to a civilized society. Stating that I have an obligation does not make it so. I repeat my question: If I cannot afford to have children of my own, what right do other people have to bear children and make me pay for them? Please support your response. > I've read most of the libertarian argument on the net. Some of it is > good theory presented badly. Some is bad theory presented well. But > all the time I seem to hear Melanie Safka singing in the background: > > "They're only puttin in a nickle > and they want a dollar song." This doesn't apply. I just don't want to have to pay a dollar for a song I didn't want to hear in the first place! If you don't like the way libertarian theories are presented on the net, let me recommend an excellent, very readable primer on these ideas and how they work in reality: "Restoring the American Dream", by Robert Ringer Available from any book store. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/08/84)
> The question is not whether someone's education is good, but who is > going to foot the bill. My wife and I have not had children, in large > part because we don't think we can afford them. Please tell me at what > point I incurred an obligation to pay for other people's children? Look at it this way -- if it were not for public education, what sort of society would we have now? Only those people who are able to afford private education would have children who could read or write. One of the best things about modern Western society is the relative lack of social classes, and the high social mobility. Do you think that without universal education this would be at all possible? How would you like to live in a world polarized into those who are educated and have all the money, and the poor illiterate masses? > Foo on your "reason", Mr. Taylor. This is the "reason" of common > thieves who would use MY money to finance what THEY want to do. Since we're name-calling, how about "money-grubbing elitists who care about only their own well-being and won't begrudge a few dollars to teach some slum kid to read so he can have a chance at a decent life"? > HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the > poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can, > and only get it free if you can't afford it? This is what we > currently do with court-appointed lawyers. My guess is that everyone > wants a piece of the "free" pie. That's not far from what things are like now -- those who can afford to tend to send their kids to private schools, and the public schools are left with those who can't afford it. The result of this is that the people in charge find less and less motivation for making sure that public education is any good, and it goes downhill... Wayne