From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:43:58 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <nate.1058@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> >Hmm.  Last I checked, we had the best damn military in the world, and it was
|> >precisely because the competition between the many private defense contractors
|> >has resulted in a significant technological edge over our adversaries.  You're
|> >not such a racist that you think Americans are just naturally smarter and
|> >better fighters than anyone else, are you?
|> 
|>     No, but I think you've changed the subject on me. We were previously 
|> discussing (and IMHO agreeing) that it would be very unwise to use more 
|> than one "defense provider" to serve the needs of our country. I have no 
|> qualms about the prospect of competition between providers of materials 
|> for use in education, however I have a big problem with the idea of 
|> taking money that is currently earmarked for public education and giving 
|> it indirectly to a bunch of private schools.

Here, you agree (I think) that private competition has had the effect of
providing a high-quality defense system.

|> >IMO, the ideal solution to the education problems would be to completely
|> >privatize the entire system.  Schools could be privately operated, and paid by
|> >local and state governments out of tax monies on a per-student basis.  Some
|> >regulation, such as standardized testing, would be necessary, as it is with any
|> >public utility.  This really isn't much different in principle from the voucher
|> >system that President Bush proposed.
|> 
|>     I agree. That's why I would oppose that solution as well.

Here, you disagree (I think) that private competition would have the effect of
providing a high-quality education system.

What is the distinction?  I think if you could just get past the notion that
"private" means "religious," as far as education goes, you'd see that it makes
a lot of sense.  The government contracts private organizations with tax money
for all kinds of things, from roads and bridges to utilities to public trans-
portation to lawyers, why not education?  Why should government be in the
teaching business any more than any other service?  What's more, not everyone
has the same idea of what's best to teach, and when to teach it, for their
children, and rightly so.  There is no way that a single school system can
please everyone.  How can you justify discriminating against a certain set of
parents by forcing them to pay double for the education of their children in
a manner consistent with their own philosophy, be it religious or otherwise,
which is their right?

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh