lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (04/05/84)
To all those who are offended by paying for my college education: Are you also offended by having to pay for my high school, secondary, and elementary education. Are you also offended by having to pay for defense, since while you also benefit from it, I might benefit even more? TO the poster who implied that I wanted to froce people to go to college, I never said that. I said that everyone with the desire to go should have that opportunity. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL) (04/06/84)
Larry Kolodney:
To all those who are offended by paying for my college education:
Are you also offended by having to pay for my high school, secondary, and
elementary education.
Yes. But I'm also offended by your having to pay for mine.
Rob Mitchell
{allegra, ihnp4}!hogpd!jrrtdanw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (12/01/84)
[] >You are right, but anybody who is interested in both individual liberties >and collective goods (like education) will take a long look at what >he is considering eliminating from government. Are there really people out there who DON'T think that free enterprise , CAN teach our kids , faster , better , and for about 1/3 the price the bureaucrats charge ? Do you really want the people who brought you the Viet Nam war, the US post office , and the DEA , in charge of educating your children ? danw
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/01/84)
> Are there really people out there who DON'T think that free >enterprise , CAN teach our kids , faster , better , and for about >1/3 the price the bureaucrats charge ? There was once a consensus in this society that *everyone* benefits from universal education. Free public education has been one of the great wellsprings of economic opportunity and social mobility in this country. If public funding for education is ceased, it seems almost certain that the children of the poor will remain ignorant and poor, and the childern of the rich will be groomed to take Daddy's place at the top of the neofeudalist heap. Is that the kind of world in which we want to live? Baba
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/03/84)
> > Are there really people out there who DON'T think that free > >enterprise , CAN teach our kids , faster , better , and for about > >1/3 the price the bureaucrats charge ? > > There was once a consensus in this society that *everyone* benefits > from universal education. Free public education has been one of the > great wellsprings of economic opportunity and social mobility in this > country. If public funding for education is ceased, it seems almost > certain that the children of the poor will remain ignorant and poor, > and the childern of the rich will be groomed to take Daddy's place > at the top of the neofeudalist heap. Is that the kind of world in > which we want to live? The point is that there is such a concensus now, and even the Reagan Administration couldn't get rid of the Department of Education even though it was one of their avowed aims. As for fully "free" free enterprise, there was such a thing once. It was called "feudalism" and it occurred during the period known as "The Dark Ages". Free enterprise DOES have a place in our society for certain types of things, but certainly not all. It is not a panacea, however good it is at certain things. Education is one of the things that it is not good at, in the sense that ALL are allowed to be educated, regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin and whatever other things have been invoked to justify discrimination. My own parents were quite poor. Were free enterprise to take care of education, I would be out there digging ditches and sweeping floors for a living. Granted that these sorts of jobs are perfectly honorable and very necessary, I would have been a disaster at them. As it happens, I have been able to go to school, study hard, and get myself a fairly good education (I have a PhD in physics). I would never have been able to do this if I had to pay the sort of money that "private" schooling requires. In the public schools I went to, the teachers were dedicated and affectionate towards their charges, and they encouraged us to learn and learn. I benefited from that encouragement (and so did many others; many of the people who I went to graduate school did also). I certainly intend to send my kids to public school. I know many examples of how public education was a force contributing to opportunity, as stated in the second quote above, and to think that private education would have had the same effect is a total fantasy so far as I can see. Did the first writer above ever get out of his ivory tower to see what life was really like for scum like me? Things like free public education are what make this country so great. In many places in the world, where they don't care about public education (i.e. leave it to free enterprise), the literacy rates among the rich are not very far from 100%, while among the poor, it's more like 10-30%. Leaving something like education to free enterprise would be a disaster.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/05/84)
==============
Are there really people out there who DON'T think that free
enterprise , CAN teach our kids , faster , better , and for about
1/3 the price the bureaucrats charge ?
danw
==============
Lots of them. Are there really people out there who DO?
PS. If danw is really a failed AI project, I apologise.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/05/84)
> There was once a consensus in this society that *everyone* benefits > from universal education. Free public education has been one of the > great wellsprings of economic opportunity and social mobility in this > country. If public funding for education is ceased, it seems almost > certain that the children of the poor will remain ignorant and poor, > and the childern of the rich will be groomed to take Daddy's place > at the top of the neofeudalist heap. Is that the kind of world in > which we want to live? > > Baba It's worse than that, because rich Daddy's children won't be much better off than the present poor, not having a reasonably educated population to work for them. 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 {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (12/06/84)
From: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis):
"As for fully "free" free enterprise, there
was such a thing once. It was called "feudalism" and it occurred during
the period known as "The Dark Ages"."
While I agree with the general crux of your message, I'm afraid you are
factually wrong in this case. The Middle ages (and feudalism) were
distinguished by their marked lack of "free enterprise". Their was no
"competition" during the middle ages, save competition in war. Men were
born into castes, from which they had virtually no chance of rising up.
The Liberal movement in Europe (in Europe "Liberal" means free market
conservative) started as a progressive movement, opposed to feudalism.
THere has NEVER really been a free market anywhere. Even 19th century
Britain's economy was highly influenced by state policy.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mc