From: Damien Sullivan <phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu>
>>Brian D Williams wrote:
>> Absolutely, why should non-parents foot the bill?
>Because we have an interest in not being surrounded by the
>ignorant?
Are you telling me we aren't now?
Glibness aside, let me make two points. One I didn't say these kids
should not receive an education, but simply that their parents
should bear the bulk of the cost, you pay for your choices, this is
free markets 101.
Second, actually I have an interest in them being ignorant and
therefore noncompetitive economically, but I ignore the economics
in this case and insist they be educated on humanistic grounds, and
I am willing to pay a portion of the cost.
>Because investment in human capital is one of the more secure
>investments you can make?
What investment? They aren't mine.
If you followed my post we would all pay a portion of education,
but the parents would pay the bulk of it. This makes it in their
economic best interest to limit the number of children to those
they can afford.
As I pointed out above, those of us without children are
essentially subsidizing our competitors.
>Because we all have an interest in the propagation of the human
>race (or civilization, if you prefer to think in those terms) and
>parents shouldn't have to foot the entire cost themselves?
As I've stated twice already parents wouldn't be paying the entire
amount, just the bulk of it, and for reasons I've already outlined.
And exactly what interest do I have in the propagation of the human
race? (I know, but do you?)
>Is being in school all year necessarily best for the kids?
This is a good question, everyone needs a vacation.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
"Party of Citizens"<citizens@vcn.bc.ca>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT