Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: sundry delayed responses Message-ID: <558@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Dec-84 08:19:51 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.558 Posted: Sat Dec 22 08:19:51 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 08:41:20 EST References: <2150@randvax.UUCP> <2628@ihldt.UUCP> <2173@randvax.UUCP> <546@unmvax.UUCP> <27@ucbcad.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 257 > > Why doesn't someone answer the hard question: If education has to be > > subsidized for the poor, why don't people who can afford it pay for the > > education of their children? > > I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this hard question. People who > can afford it generally do pay for the education of their own children, > and that of poor people also. Here is another way of phrasing the question: For a trial in the U.S. if a defendant can be shown to lack the finances to afford a lawyer, one will be appointed by the state. The parallel to schooling is straightforward. Why doesn't every person pay directly for his/her child's education and only when a person can not afford the costs should government kick in? If the answer is that poor people will get significantly poorer education, then do you oppose our current system of hiring of lawyers? (Why no, everyone knows that the courts are fair and who needs adequate legal protection, like if you hadn't committed a crime, you wouldn't be in court :-) > I think that this talk of obligations to society obscures the main point, > and that it that public education is definitely a positive force in > society, and thus is worth having. I don't think that anybody has argued > that having masses of completely uneducated illiterate poor people is > better than what we have now (although considering what things are like > now in the public schools, it might not be much worse). I guess there is a difference between the hypothetical masses of *uneducated* illiterate poor people and todays masses of (educated?) illiterate poor people? You pose a question that (improperly) assumes a consequence of my proposition above. Quite simply, the more competition that public schools have to face, the more responsive they will have to be. > > > M. L. King Jr. once > > > said that education was neccessary so that the poor and the > > > underprivileged could participate fully in american society. > > > > The comment has no relevance to how schools should be supported. > > True, but the point is that they must be supported at any cost, and > if it takes government money, it should be supplied. Great! the cost is having to rely on competition to keep the public schools in line. Of course, I don't see relying on competition a high price to pay, but either way I am glad that you agree with me. If you believe that the failings of inner city education are due to funding problems, then why is it that during the years that succesively more money was poured into public education the scores of the public students taking standard tests declined? > > > Free education and an educated > > > society benefits everyone. > > > > Do the benefits come from "free" education or from an educated society. > > The two are not linked. > > I don't think that a society would be very educated without free education. > Education wasn't free in the dark ages, and look how bad off they were.. :-) It doesn't matter what you think when there are facts that can be posted. Too bad Barbara's asleep, or I would march into my bedroom and look for the illiteracy figures for before we (i.e. the U.S.) had "free" education. Since I don't want to wake her, why don't we make a game of it: as soon as you read this message, post an article telling the net what your guess is. Then when I post the figures, we can a) laugh at how far off you were and/or b) compare that figure to last year's statistic and then argue about the meaning of the phrase "very educated" (Why am I up in the middle of the night posting to netnews? Because I have the trouble sleeping that I always have when I am preparing a case to go to court--I like to take an active part in dealing with shady business practices, like the good libertarian I try to be.) > > > Most public schools teach more than just academics. In most public > > > schools there are a mix of children with various economic, social, > > > racial, and religious backgrounds. Thus children will be > > > understanding and tolerant of others with different backgrounds. > > > > Now you are arguing that integrated education is the big win. Which is > > it? "Free" education or integrated education? Don't claim that these > > two are linked. Think about it. > > You explain how you can get integrated education without compulsory, > public education. I don't think you can... Linked was a poor word to use. I should have said that compulsory public education does not imply integrated integration nor does integrated education imply compulsory public education. In New Hampshire there are many public schools with fewer traditional minorities (I couldn't leave minority unqualified, since every male is a minority member) than I have fingers on my left hand. Are the students attending those schools necessarily receiving a substanard education? What would be the solution? flying minority students into the area from a good distance away? I attended kindergarten through third and eighth grade in schools that were racially integrated and yet were only open to children of parents who were of a particular occupation. I know that I wasn't in an uncommon position, so don't tell me that it is impossible to have racial integration without compulsory public education. I'll let you strain your synapses figuring out the profession of at least one of my parents during K-3,8. Maybe you should have asked me to explain how the country can have forced integrated education without compulsory integrated education. The answer is of course that it can't, but the question is not of much import and borders on non-sensical. > > > > HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the > > > > poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can, > > > > and only get it free if you can't afford it? This is what we > > > > currently do with court-appointed lawyers. My guess is that everyone > > > > wants a piece of the "free" pie. > > > > > > That's not far from what things are like now -- those who can afford to > > > tend to send their kids to private schools, and the public schools are > > > left with those who can't afford it. The result of this is that the > > > people in charge find less and less motivation for making sure that > > > public education is any good, and it goes downhill... > > > > > > Wayne > > > > What a great response! You never answered the question, but you did imply > > that somehow teaching poor people is less motivating than teaching the > > well-to-do. > > I wasn't trying to answer the question. I think that it is a good idea, > but if you look at the facts you will see that it tends not to work out. > Certainly teaching children in public schools is less motivating for most > teachers than teaching children in private schools, because the private > schools have the better students. It's too bad that things are like this, > because it tends to be a self-perpetuating thing -- the worse public schools > get, the more good students leave them, and they get worse. How do you think > this should be dealt with? Abolish the public schools? A bad school is > better than none at all... Please tell me where these facts are so I can look at them. You are telling me that children of parents with money are "better students" than children of poor parents. I don't understand. My impression is that intelligence is fairly evenly distributed as long as noone handicaps an infant by excessive drinking during pregnancy, etc. To make teaching fun again there should be more expulsions of unruly students. I am sure that such a measure would do more to bring up the overall level of education of each student than any other element of integration, whether it be racial or fiscal. If Joe Thug gets expelled, he can come back later when he decides he really wants an education. There are limits to the statement "a bad school is better than none at all." Would you consider any of the day care centers that have been indicted for molesting children better than no day care center at all? I didn't think so. How about a school where 100% of the graduating student body is functionally illiterate? 97%? 93%? Where do you draw the line? What if matters are complicated by the fact that a school is so full of violence that the non- violent children are indoctrinated into a world they would not have contact with? What about when the public school decides that it is necessary to instill morals in students, but the morals disagree with yours? > > "1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime > > whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the > > United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > > 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate > > legislation." > > > > How many involuntary servants' lives were lost in Vietnam? Just what crime > > had they been convicted of? Oh, let me guess, the people that proposed this > > amendment in 1865 didn't have war on their minds when it was written so the > > lack of a "except in times of national emergency" clause was an oversight? > > Think hard now. There is no way to interpret the draft as anything but > > involuntary servitude. Now tell me that it is unlikely that the government > > can be perverted into a tyranny (Websters: 2. oppressive and unjust > > government). > > War is such an obvious exception to this sort of clause that you shouldn't > complain if it was left out. Bullshit! The Civil War had just finished. The drafters (pardon the pun) of that amendment could easily have put in a clause for exception during war time. The Civil War was fought without a draft there was no reason at that time to believe that conscription would ever be necessary; hence both the wording and the original intent are clear; those are the points on which the Supreme Court is supposed to base its decision, not whether there are extenuating circum- stances. Extenuating circumstances are to be handled by amendments. > Take a justified war, where the country is > in danger of being invaded. I doubt that you would complain about > obligatory military duty in a case like this. Now consider all the > situations that are of the same sort -- Russia invades Canada, for > instance. Is this a clear case of justified military intervention? Bullshit! I will complain about any obligatory military duty in any country that claims to be free. The Revolutionary war was fought with volunteers. It was a war in which not only was the enemy directly present on home territory, but the enemy was firmly entrenched! The Civil war was fought without conscription and not only was the enemy directly present on home territory and firmly entrenched, but the enemy was us! What is so special about the Russians invading us? Or is it just that we already know the results of the wars that I just mentioned, yet the war with the Russians is in the future (or is it?) While a country enslaves its citizens, for any reason, that country can not call itself free. (btw, the original justification for the Vietnam war was that we *were* in danger of being attacked. Remember the domino theory? The last domino to fall was supposed to be us). > Things can get pretty difficult to decide sometimes. If you were in the > position of the policy-makers during the Vietnam war, can you be sure > that you would make the right choice between unjustified meddling and > intervention where an essential interest of the US is concerned? Yes. > > I have heard of stores robbed with hammers. A large individual with a large > > hammer enters, says "give me your money or I will do large amounts of damage > > with this hammer," takes the money and drives away. You don't see things > > like this happening in banks, because bank security guards are allowed to > > have guns. Now, if you continue to allow money that is in a bank to be > > proteted by guns, but you don't allow money at home to be protected by guns > > you are unfairly influencing where someone should keep his money. > > And if you don't allow people to have anti-aircraft guns, you are unfairly > preventing them from keeping their money in big balloons a thousand feet > above their houses. Come on... Yes Wayne, if you were to allow banks to have anti-aircraft guns and not allow the people the same right, you would be unfairly preventing private citizens from doing something that a corporation is allowed. Depending on the circum- stances there can be serious ramifications. Think hard. If you were living in an area and both you and the local bank believed that a weapon was needed to prevent your money from being stolen and the government said that you as an individual were not allowed to keep said weapon, how is that different from the government saying you must keep your money in a bank? If you claim that people should not mind keeping their money in banks then I suggest you reread your early 20th century history. > > In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove > > the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on > > the judicial process. People curious about some of my views on that will > > have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there. > > Ok, I'll bite... YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND I believe my knowledge of the judicial process is adequate. I received my only judicial blemish when I was foolish enough to not represent myself. I have represented myself both in criminal and civil court. > ONLY A LEGLESS FROG WOULD HAVE IDEAS LIKE YOURS. (By the way, what are they?) > > Wayne LEGLESS FROGS are the little guys that sell pencils outside of french restaurants. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143