From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:11:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.174847.12821@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
} In article <19347@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} >
} >In article <l8l2viINNhnl@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
} >} In article <19259@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} >} |> In article <wPe8oB1w164w@coldbox.cojones.com>, system@coldbox.cojones.com (Bryan Lockwood) writes:
} >} |> } Won't fly. In this scenario, education would be too expensive for many
} >} |> } parents to afford!
} >} |> 
} >} |> If they can't afford their children's education, then they shouldn't have
} >} |> had children in the first place!
} 
} So poor people shouldn't have children?

Not what I am saying.  If a person, poor or not, can afford a child, fine.

Tell me, if it is wise for someone who cannot afford a child to have one
anyway, how about two?  Five?  Nine?  Fourteen?  At what point do you
think someone, who cannot afford children, should stop having them?

} >} 2.	At the time you decide to have children, you do not know how
} >} 	much it will cost to educate them.
} >
} >So what?  I don't have to know how much a condo in Aspen will cost to
} >know that I cannot afford it either.   Should I buy one anyway?
} 
} Gestation periods are usually longer than escrow periods.

What's that got to do with anything?

} >} 3.	Education is as much a benefit to the society as it is to
} >} 	the individual.
} >
} >I'll give you the same response I gave to someone else via email.
} >
} >[Some benefits we are not obligated to provide]
} 
} I believe that the benefits of an educated populace are much greater
} than these others that you mention.

If it is that important to you, it important enough for you that you
find a way to foot the bill for their education yourself.

} >} |> } Maybe one way of
} >} |> } looking at it is to say that you spend the rest of your life paying back into
} >} |> } the system to cover your _own_ education.
} >} |> 
} >} |> If you buy a loaf of bread, you are not obligated to keep paying the grocer
} >} |> for that bread for the rest of your life.  Once you have paid your doctor for
} >} |> medical care, you are not obligated to pay for that care for the rest of
} >} |> your life.  Why must it be any different for education?
} 
} Because you continue to get the benefits of educating the younger members
} of society.

The original poster stated that we are paying for the rest of our lives for
our _own_ education.

Besides, in other areas of society we are not obligated to pay for something
that, even though it benefits us, we did not ask for.  Examples: in a
restaurant, we are not obligated to pay for food we did not order.  We are
not obligated to pay for things we recieved in the mail that we did not
order, either.

About here is where you'd say something like, "Education is different; it's
more important!".  Right?

Tell ya what, I have a propostion for you.  I have often thought I'd like
to be a doctor.  Unfortunately, I cannot afford medical school.  So if I
can find a medical school that will accept me at my age, I'll send the bill
for all my expenses to you.  Then after I become an MD, if you get a cut on
your finger, come to me and I'll put a Band-Aid on it, and we'll call it
even.  After all, your payments will have made my medical education
possible, and you will have benefitted from it.  Do we have a deal?

} ... 
} Educational _need_ for society is permanent.

One person's need does not translate into another's obligation to fulfill
that need.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1504 alt.politics.clinton:1897 alt.politics.perot:1269 talk.politics.misc:39580