From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:36:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.083531.3355@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>Another point:   The tuition of Purdue increases at a regular, dependable 
>rate of 8% a year.  WHY?  The inflation rate has been barely 1/4th of that.
>Is the quality of education increasing at a rate of 8% at Purdue?  Hardly.
>
>Dudes, these collages operate on Supply and Demand just like anybody else.
>If the state subsidises education, that means that people can pay more for
>education, and hence the collage charges more for it, and because there are
>more people wanting to go to collage than there are places for them, the
>collage can get away with it.
>
>It sounds really good to give poor people assistance to go to collage, and
>I have yet to meet a Libertarian who doesn't think that private scholarships
>shouldn't be encouraged, but the high-sounding, moralistic ideal of "giving
>everybody a chance to go to collage" is being perverted into just the opposite.
>

I think we sometimes miss the point.  Most people used to go to college
because they had a talent, a calling, or high intelligence.  Now, college
is a requirement.  The problem is that people still see any old college
degree as being a passport to success.  It simply isn't.  A college degree
today is like a high school diploma was 40 years ago.  Nowadays, maybe a
Masters degree or a degree in a good field can mean success, but liberal
arts, communications, literature, etc. degrees are a dime a dozen.

Twenty years ago, we had a vision that the future would be a world of middle
class families who worked 20 hours a week, had robot servants and lots of 
leisure time (ala the Jetsons).  I can't see it.  What I see is guarded 
palaces of the haves.  Those who have the technology eventually will have 
machines doing most of their work.  They will build lush palaces, control
vast natural resources, allowing only select people to share their wealth.
They will hoard there resources, no longer requiring commerce to accumulate
wealth, as they already have the power of technology, wealth, control, and
utility.  Those who can share will be those who provide services unable to 
be performed by machine, nurses, entertainers, chamber maids.  Laborers,
pencil pushers, secretaries, accountants, police, teachers, etc., will become 
obsolete.  Those not sharing in the wealth will have no power to fight the
technological giants, they will have no natural resources to build a new
life for themselves. 

People not in the palaces will probably be seen as a threat or a drain on 
resources and eliminated, but possibly, we could be left to eke out an
existence with small farming, fishing, or hunting (knives, not guns).
Or maybe we could decide that we have created enough wealth (food, water,
shelter, toys, utility) to provided everyone with a piece of the pie.
Maybe we could focus on preserving resources, recycling, cleaning up, building
a world that provided sufficient comfort for all, since we know that we really
don't need an expanding society, expanding markets anymore.  We just need to
learn how to share, and live together.

I guess you all think I'm cracked.  I say there is a choice.  Allow those who
crave power to take over, or be willing to share.  And I'd like to close with 
some questions.  Why do relatively wealthy (middle class) work so hard?
Why do they eat boxed dinners?  Why do they live in messy homes?  Why do they
ignore polluted waters and air?  Seriously, with all the wealth, why do people
put up with such conditions?  Who's the wealthy person, the one who works hard,
eats three square meals, drinks clean water, breathes clean air, enjoys his
life, or the person who works hard, has lots of money, breathes smog, drinks
chemicals, and has an ulcer?

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism