In article ,
 peoplesim  wrote:

> I have an objection to your scheme: why should government
> be involved in funding education at all? Americans are
> generous people; if any family can't afford to send their
> children to school, private charities can take care of that.

In all fairness to the commies:

If that was true, we would already see all the kids
currently rotting away in public schools rescued by
the private charities.

I'm a libertarian with a small l because I realize
that even if government shouldn't be involved in something,
that the public will desire some kind of social
intervention.  It's best to find the least obtrusive
way possible to achieve the needed result.

> Under the (foolish) assumption that property taxes would
> drop if government got out of the school business, many
> people would suddenly have the money to contribute to
> these charities,

This is assuming the charities would suddenly pop
into existance and would be capable of handling the
caseload of poor parents.

The money that would come back would be significant,
but not huge.  It wouldn't be as if each person suddenly
got 10K back in their taxes or something.  I think
it would be about 1 to 2K.  Not a small chunk of
change, but people aren't necessarily going to donate
that money to poor people's children when they
want to redo their backyard deck.

> if they wish. This also serves a moral
> point. Government is neither generous nor charitable, since
> its revenue isn't voluntary, nor does government permit the
> exercise of virtue.

The government doesn't get the destitute off of the streets
purely out of virtue: There's also a public interest
to consider.

I hate to agree with Parg, but she does have a point.
But that point needn't be larger than it need be.
If parents need education, fine.  That doesn't
necessarily mean the taxpayers have to foot the bill.
They can simply take out a loan and make the parents
pay it back however long it takes.

Using the way deadbeat dads are treated as an example,
the debt wouldn't be dischargable under bankruptcy
laws.

Now while you may scoff at my compromise as selling out,
consider: This is far more sellable than the tough
love soluton you're suggesting and it accomplishes
the same result: People have a safety net COMBINED
with personal responsibility and a very limited taxpayer
burden.  Imagine a single mother winding up with 100K
in debt all by her little self.

> It is only by the exercise of moral
> choice can virtue be learned, and the habits of virtue made
> permanent. Government action causes the atrophy of habits
> of virtue.

If private companies want to compete with the state to
provide private education student loans, why not?
Heck, I would suggest doing it that way similar to
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

> The only problem is that while liberals talk endlessly about
> "helping the little guy", liberals themselves are as a class
> much less generous (measured by charitable contributions) than
> conservatives.

And heck, they despise the "little guys" as "rednecks"
or live in walled prison-like housing protecting them.

Michael Moore is an interesting figure because he hates
evil corporations but also hates small store owners
(for having the nerve to not want the government
to redistribute their earnings) and hates small towns
as rednecks and the suburbs as sprawl.  He also
wouldn't be caught dead in the inner cities.

So these types of elitists largely live in fantasy worlds
even as they hide in their lofts or if they can afford
it, malibu or country town homes.  Did you hear about
Hollywood leftists going insane over the idea of
people walking on their private, er, public beaches?
Why, little people shouldn't be allowed to walk
on THEIR beach. :-)

> This produces guilt, a need to be seen doing
> good, which can only be assuaged by forcing everybody to be
> "generous"

I don't buy into Parg's "murder people in their beds"
claptrap but I do think that people do want the state
to intervene lest parents neglect their children either
out of stupidity or financial need.  Is it so awful
to blow a fraction of what's currently spent on education
to loan the money?

> e.g. start a new government program. And so any
> attempt to scale back government education will be met with
> righteous fury, lest these good works be seen for the frauds
> they are.

In theory, this could be done locally: have local school districts
privatize their schools and split up into several zones.
One would be religious, another would be secular, another might
be vocational, etc.  Drop the property tax accordingly
and pay for the schools through loans backed by local
FAMILY F-U courts which would put the repayments into
the same catagory as "child" support.  In other words,
piggyback on the existing f'ed up system.

What do you think?  I'm suggesting something that's practical
and humane and workable and sellable.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/24/05 8:46:09 PM ---