From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: My soc and cap definitions + ed discussion
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:12:40 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia

According to the many dictionaries I have read:

Socialism: The equal distribution of all that exists, usually leading to
	   the equal distribution of all that is produced.
	- may also mean a society with no class divisions.

Capitalism:The act of building up capital, often in the form of property
	   with the intent of using it to run a business at a profit.

No doubt I will be corrected.
Note: this is the general 'opinion' of several dictionaries. That type of 
publishing company (Oxford U,Enc Brit etc) tend to be conservative, so I
would take a small grain of salt with the Socialist definition.

BTW, I believe that everyone should get an equal start in life, compulsory
ed till 18, free tert ed and a decent health care system. Does this make
me a socialist - noway - I consider this as an investment for the future, 
nice how you can capitalize on anything.

A government basically wants as much tax dollars it can get, right? Those
with tert eds are likely to earn $30000 a year, leading to around $10000
in tax. A five year tert ed costs what - $35000 to $60000? (for private. Here,
a tert ed will set you back $10000 or more, and that's the state unis. I don't
know how it goes for US state unis, but something similar, I expect)
This means that
someone with a tert ed would have paid it off (if gov. funded) inside 10 years,
leaving as much as another 40 years of higher taxes, as opposed to a pitiful
$2000-$3000 for non-tert eds. Also consider that some would be earning
considerably more than $10000 in tax, wouldn't they? I know that an increased
number of people with tert eds would bring their salaries down, but it would
still pay itself off in a reasonably short time. So why don't govs put this
into places?

Conservatives are against this since it would mean they would have to work
harder to keep the wealth handed to them on silver platters. All the kids who
could make it if only given a chance would trounce them.
Bigger earners are not likely to vote for socialists who love to stick
'progressive' taxes on people. It should be a flat rate on the part exceeding
the minimum wage. If the 'poor' don't like it, get an educated and get a higher
paid job. THAT's why is should be 'regressive', to make the 'poor' not satisfied
with a lower earning job.

The big killer of society (IMO) is unfair advantages for the children of rich
people whilst children of poor people don't even get told of the benefits of an
education.
Social mobility (or rather the lack of it) is another. The socialist solution
is to flatten everything out so noone cries `UNFAIR!!', is it not?
The people who created the change of the last 100 years have been the worker to 
middle 'class', not the dead poor. The fact that more people are becoming
middle instead of worker is what's killing the unions - they still think that
everybody with more than a few hundred stashed away is out to screw the
worker. Some idiot unions still call members 'Comrades'.
Hard left unions are giving real reformers a bad rap.

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
#! rnews 1252