Subj : Re: Clarification To : Todd Henson From : Joshua Lee Date : Tue Oct 24 2000 02:03 pm -=> TODD HENSON wrote to JOSHUA LEE <=- > TH> How do you know that some people wouldn't get an education unless the > TH> govt paid for it? > > Elementary economics; large amounts of supply drive down profits. Thus > the government has to be involved somehow in making sure that every > child recieves an education; even if it is being involved in subsidizing > private education. TH> I'm not convinced that the supply will be so low that govt action would TH> be required. If the parents always had to pay; some would go without. Also, the free market would tend to make it only available to some people; a supply so large would drive down profits unless schools made their education available to some, but not others; as private schools do today. > TH> school that held a seminar to GRAPHICALLY instruct high-school > TH> kids on homosexuality, "fisting", and other such things. > > I have two half brothers who are in high school and neither of them > have learned "fisting" in high school. In fact, sex education is > required in the state of Virginia to teach abstinance before marriage. TH> Did I say that ALL schools teach this? No. I said *A* school. Which school? I think this is religious propaganda. I don't think that graphical instruction in "fisting" is coming to schools... > TH> But, could you describe the difference between the Republican voucher > TH> plan and the kind of plan that you'd support? > > The vouchers must not merely subsidize existing private educated children > primarily, but must make *every* child able to choose a private school; TH> How is the Republican plan only subsidizing the rich? It doesn't pay anything close to full private school tuition, only those who can spare several thousand dollars a year get the subsidy. TH> I have yet to see anything which indicates that only "rich" people TH> would get vouchers. That TH> sounds like more typical liberal scare tactics. No, it's simple math; if the voucher is alot less than the price of the school, only the rich can pay. Basically a subsidy for existing private school students, at the expense of public school students. > WIC allocations showed a direct correspondance to the funding of WIC > and infant mortality; strong indications that it has an effect on > unborn children (who you claim to care about so much). TH> I do care about them, I just remain justifiably skeptical of such govt TH> claims, especially when those claims are politically motivated. It's not a "government claim", it was a peer-reviewed paper published in the respected journal "Scientific American." I still don't see why you are opposed to paying only for certain nutritious foods such as milk to infants and mothers who are pregnant. It is not a disencentive to work as they wouldn't be in the workforce in that condition anyway. > > > so-called welfare state. In the USSR, there was no unemployment > > > allowed; either you worked, or were arrested as a "parasite". > > > > TH> Are you saying that wealth-redistribution is not a function of > > TH> socialism? > > > > Socialism is a radical way to do that, yes. Just as a caste society, > > such as pre-industrial India, is an extreme example of it's opposite. > > However, nobody would define any instance of inequity a caste system; > > TH> Socialism also refers to theories that call for govt responsibility of > TH> all financial planning. And that is where wealth-redistribution comes > TH> in as a function of a socialist state. It what they DO. > > Socalism means the ownership of the means of production; according to > it's own proponents. > > Listen, if we can't agree on what words mean, why talk? TH> If you wish to have such a narrow conception of how sociaism operates TH> in the real world, that be your choice. :-) No, my concept of "how socialism acts in the real world" is based on countries that are socialist in the real world. The USSR was socialist. The United States is not; I hope you're not claiming that you think that America is a "real world" example of how "sociaism [sic] operates". TH> previously. Here's a clip TH> from Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily: Interesting; I think I recognize the name from the Jewish religious site aish.com He did a guest editorial on the new intifada and it's biased coverage in the media. Or perhaps this is a different Farah? Incidentally, you'll note that one of the bill's sponsors for reduction in fourth amendment rights for fugitives is one of the most conservative Republican senators; Orin Hatch, not an especially liberal source. JBL .... What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind! - Homer S. ___ MultiMail/Win32 v0.37 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: Juxtaposition BBS, Telnet:juxtaposition.dynip.com (1:167/133) .