From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Extreme premises (was: School vouchers)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:35:17 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Oct7.224657.8896@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >><Phil writes> Yes. And the "we" is you and me. Unless you can
    >>show me proof that every single cent you make over and above
    >>that which is needed for bare survival, then you too say "too
    >>bad" -- too bad about the millions of children starving to
    >>death now in parts of Africa for example.
    >>
    >>Show me proof that any $$$ above the utter bare minimum
    >>survival amount that you make is donated to those children,
    >>and I'll take you out of
    >the "we".>
    >>O.K.?
    >>
    >To which I responded. "No, this is not ok" because the
    >premise of your argument is extreme and immature. The premise
    >of your argument is as follows:
    >
    >The only way a person can support issue X is to put "any $$
    >above bare minimum survival" into efforts supporting issue X
    >and supersets of issue X.

No, that is not my argument at all.

Let's try this -- perhaps you would be so kind as to respond to
each step at the point where you disagree.

** I don't think schools supported by coercive taxes should exist.
   No coercion, priod.

** To which the reply was raised -- but the kids NEED school, and without
   coercive taxes parents won't send their kids to school (which I disagree
   with -- what a Statist mentality!), so therefore I am obligated to pay
   coercive taxes so that other peoples kids can go to school.

1. All right, let's assume something I strongly disagree with.
   YOUR need (some else, a schoolkid) does have a claim on me (taxes).

2. Thus, I am obligated to provide your needs. And conversely, you are
   obligated to provide my needs.

3. If I must pay taxes for kids that need school, then kids should pay
   taxes because I need a Ferrari 308.

4. Well, number 3 seems funny. While we both may have needs, clearly some
   needs are more equal or more important than other needs.

5. Therefore, we must rank needs. Schooling is probably more important
   than a new sports car, right? Actually, there are tremendous
   fallacies in that last sentence, but we'll accept it for now.

6. Now, having established that some needs are more important than other
   needs, we can now justify taxes. We take money from you, so that
   you can't buy that Ferrari, and use it to pay for schools.

7. Now, if you took ALL my salary, you could buy proportionately more
   schooling. However, it would be stupid on the face of it to take
   all my money. Clearly, I get to keep a bare minimum to live on,
   right? So if I make $100,000 in Silicon Valley, I could get bare
   as an utter bare minimum on say, $15,000.

   So somewhere bewteen $1 in taxes and $85,000 in taxes is what could
   be taken from me because some other kids need school.

8. Let's get back to needs. There are a LOT of kids that need school.
   And let's face it, I really don't need that sports car, or 35"
   color TV, ..., so therefore, as kids needs for basic education
   comes first, you must take all that $85,000.

   Or, if not, then justify me having a 35" color TV .vs. inadequate
   schools for some number of children.

9. And now that we have established need, surely 4,000,000 starving
   Somalian children have a greater need for food *NOW* than we do
   for our schools.

10. You mentioned something about limiting the discussion to America.
    Why? What is your rationale? Why America? Why not Somalia? Or,
    to go the other way, why not California? Santa Clara Valley?
    Cupertino?

    After all, one of the hotter arguments is that the "richer"
    school districts have better schools than the "poorer"
    school districts (taxes based on housing values etc.), and
    that somehow the richer districts should be forced to level out
    to the poorer districts.

    So why the restriction to America? Need IS need, right?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

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