From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:12:01 GMT

In article <Bvps9q.9CD@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
    >Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
    >>Now, either children A). DO HAVE A CLAIM ON MY EXISTENCE or
    >>B). CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM ON MY EXISTENCE. ... Or do
    >>you assert that somehow children in America have a right to
    >>force me to pay for their education, but children in Somalia
    >>don't have a right to force me to pay for their food?
    >>
    >Let's visit this one shortly. If you live in America as a
    >member of a community, do you owe the community anything for
    >providing you with a suitable environment in which to thrive?
    >In other words, children from your society (community,
    >culture, whatever) have a "right" to "force you to pay" for
    >their education, but the children from a different society
    >(community, culture, etc...) do not. This 1/2 argument
    >indicates that the A/B choice above need not cover the entire
    >range of choices.
    >
    >Therefore, Michael's claim of not following how Somalia
    >enters into a discussion about American public schools
    >indicates that he isn't following your argument in this
    >discussion. Perhaps it should be clarified as to what you are
    >arguing for/against.

O.K.

I state that no one has a claim on my existence. Period. I may trade
my efforts, intellect, property, etc. for other such things from other
people, but that no one has any "claim" to my property.

Now, the claim that Mr. Helm advances, if I understand it correctly,
is that (he believes) that children have a "right" to an education
and that I (among others) have an "obligation" to pay for that education.

His reasoning that I can comprehend includes:

  1. Without that education, the children will be "harmed".

  2. Since I am "part of a community" I either am obligated or I have
     "agreed" to pay for this education -- I'm not sure on this as
     this is mostly implied and not stated.



Clearly, I agree that without education, children can and will be harmed.
Not all of them, but most of them.



Now, I state:

  1. No one has any claim on my existence. Period.

  2. If the children will be harmed without education, then even worse
     harm will befall them if they can't eat or have poor nutrition.

     Yet, we (still) accept the principle that I am not obligated to
     pay for the food for other peoples children.

     So to be consistent, shouldn't Michael be arguing that I must pay
     for food, shelter, clothing, medical care as these are even MORE
     important that education?

  3. Community. Suppose I live in a very rich city. The parents can all
     (and most probably do) afford to send their kids to private schools.

     Am I obligated to pay taxes to educate kids, especially if I have
     no kids of my own?

     Or suppose I live way out in desert and educate my kids myself?

     Or I'm Amish, and educate my kids myself?

     Or I don't have kids?

     How large is this community? City? County? State? Nation? World?

     How can I justify buying say, expensive computers for the local
     school when kids in other counties/state/nations go without
     some basic educational materials such as textbooks or even food
     (can't learn on an empty stomach)?




Thus, if oen asserts that other people DO have a claim on your
existence (i.e., YOU are obligated to pay for THEIR kids education,
food, whatever), then WHERE does the claim stop?

How can you let American kids have fancy computers when Somalian
kids are starving?

Obviously, Michael accepts some kind of limit. I am asking him to
define or give his rationale for that limit.

I state that the limit is 0 -- that no one has a claim on your
existence.

Michael uses a "benefit" argument -- if *I* don't pay (taxes)
for other peoples kids education, they won't get any education
(false), so therefore, I can be taxed for it.

Note that as the benefit is relatively fixed (let's say ALL kids
get a 12th grade education), then given another baby boom, it
can be justified taking more and more of my money.

And if we look at it in terms of benefits, then we should take
Bill Gate ~$5 billion dollars away (leave him $5,000,000 or so)
and use it for various things like education for poor kids.

The benefit -- 100,000's of poor kids.
The cost -- we rip off 1 (one), only one! person, Bill Gates.

Me? I say that is STILL theft of the worst kind.



So, where does YOUR logic lead you?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics