Subj : Re: Clarification To : JOSHUA LEE From : TODD HENSON Date : Wed Oct 25 2000 07:26 pm > SGID: 1:167/133.0 39f63f78 > -=> 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. Those are a lot of assumptions. I guess we just won't agree. > > 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... And I think you are in denial. I thought I posted the article here in PHIL. > > 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. You'd have to use the actual words of the Republican plan to show how their claims would lead to such a result. > 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. No, if people get a voucher, then the total amount of money that they will have to spend is less than if they had to pay full price, which means that other people besides the "rich" will be helped. > > 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 isn't that I am outright opposed to any kind of social programs whatsoever. I just happen to see dangers and trends that you do not. > 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. Whatever. > 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". Man, you do have the ability to butcher things that people have said sometimes. :-) I guess it's become moot by now. > 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? I don't know. Maybe I'll surf over there and check it out. > 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. Of course! Which makes me all the more motivated to smack him upside the head and say "WHHHATTT are you thinking man!?!?!?!?!?" --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345) .