From: Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A773338C3201649B@mac1155.ils.nwu.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:35:08 GMT
Organization: Institute of Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:57:14 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.93Jan7184944@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> Mark
Slagle, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
> > If your family could have afforded to send you to an unsubsidized,
top-notch
> > college on the perhaps 20 to 30 percent of their income that is paid
in taxes
> > (never mind that some of that money would be needed to buy services
that you
> > currently receive from the government), then you clearly place
yourself into
> > the "frustrated children of the elite" class so clearly described.
> 
> Don't be obtuse.  If your family had put away 20 to 30 percent of their
> income from the time of your birth they would have enough to send you
> and several brothers and sisters to Harvard.  That's if they had made
> even very conservative investments.  If, on the other hand, they had
> made some astute stock picks with the money, they might now be in a
> position to buy a small, but good quality, liberal arts college.  The
> concept, for the "frustrated children" of the "impoverished" is known
> as sacrificing in the present for future rewards.  Our government, with
> its proclivity to inflate the currency combined with grand theft 
> taxation, renders the strategy somewhat less effective.

You're forgetting something, though: supply and demand.  If taxes were
eliminated, and the average net income rose accordingly, demand for all
items would also rise, since they are now more affordable.  As the demand
rises for a product, so will its price.  In a post-tax-elimination world,
products will cost the same as they do today, as a percentage of income. 
The difference would be that the government (the people) will no longer
have the power to subsidize those areas whose importance to society
transcend their free-market viability, like research (medical,
technological, etc.), education, transportation, law enforcement,
national defense, etc.  Instead of these things being distributed to the
masses, they will go to the highest bidder, and will therefore be
designed to benefit those who can pay for it.  The end result: a highly
polarized society consisting of the privileged very rich and the
oppressed very poor.  (History will back me up on this, I believe.)

As to the point of this thread, whether education should be subsidized, I
pose the following question: If the poor cannot afford an education, how
do you expect they can ever pull themselves out of poverty?

These postings which express this "get the government (the people) out of
the way of the free market" attitude always confuse me.  It almost seems
that their authors believe that governments exist to support capitalism,
when it's quite the reverse.

Cliff Chaput                   | "The scribes on all the people shove
Institute of Learning Sciences |  and bawl allegiance to the state.
Northwestern University        |  But they who love the greater love
chaput@ils.nwu.edu             |  lay down their lives; they do not hate"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian