> Apparently your idea of "too simplistic" is "says something meaningful
> clearly enough to be understood." The actual content of the statement,
> that public education costs twice as much as private education of better
> quality, you evade altogether so you can react to my choice of the
> word "stolen" to describe taxes. Fine, substitute "taken"--a simple
> fact of reality you can't evade--and then deal with the actual content
> of the assertion, which I stand by. I also happily stand my my use of
> the word "stolen", but if that gets in the way of your ability to apply
> ordinary reason to an assertion, then go ahead and pick a less loaded
> word for your own use.
>
No I do not have a problem with your assertion of education being badly
managed by the government. Or of taxation being unfair.
The MAJOR difference - which you appanrently missed - is pointing out that
SOME people, not you.. not Mr. Lorrey, not most Libertarians, but this one..
see value in educating people who have no money. In making education
available at OUR OWN EXPENSE to others who have children but may ( for some
stupid reason) think their children don;t deserve it. I said this is my own
SELFISH desire for a better society.
I would gladly pay a part of my salary to educate your kid, if you were
stupid enough to want him to NOT go to school - or if you were a poor
provider. I want public education to survive, even if I do ( and I do ) have
my kids in private schools. Even if that "public" education is privately
funded.
This came in before I unsubsribed, but will not be on list so you may reply
offlist if you like.