stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (12/06/84)
I'll keep this reply short, since I think the net has seen relatively coherent arguments from both sides. > Mr. Stewart did you go to a public school? Up to 85% of all > children in this country go to public schools. Yes, I did. I don't think it's quite accurate, though, to force people to pay for a service, and then measure its virtue by how many people participate in it. Obviously people use it; they've already paid for it. That doesn't mean it's the best system. My parents were not rich, but I would have been educated if there were no public schools. ASIDE: This is the point behind my other question, about only providing public education to those that need it. If the school district I live in were to close down, there would be almost no effect on literacy since virtually everyone could afford alternatives. In my case, as in many cases, public education is not a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, but from the childless to those with children. > ... an educated society benefits everyone. I agree with this, and all the other things you say about the virtues of education. The problem I have, however, is when a social *goal* becomes an enforced *obligation*. What authority makes the decisions? I could present a long list of items that would benefit everyone, but which are not being made obligations. Why aren't they? Because they aren't worth it in the opinions of the majority of people. I don't like giving absolute power to whichever group has the loudest voice (even when I agree with them); they may turn on me one day. This is not much different from mob rule, even when the enforcement is done through the government instead of with clubs and pitchforks. The way I figure it, if you have to force people to contribute to your worthy cause, is it really that worthy? Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart