Christopher Nelson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:43:35PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >> >>Umm. You do realize that not all private schools are Christian, >>correct? There are Jewish, Muslim, and yes even secular private >>schools. If there are not enough secular private schools now, I'm sure >>that a market would open up for them if public education was abolished. > > > I do realise that not all private schools are religious, but it seems > that the minority are secular, and I am of the opinion that it is > important that a child have the option to go to a secular school. I > also know that none of the private schools in the county I grew up in in > Kentucky were secular, which is why I raised the issue. > Of course they are all religious. The government is in the business of providing secular education. They force you to pay for it, whether you use it or not. Who can compete with that? OTOH, people who want a religious education for their children must either (1) send them to private religious school, or (2) supplement their children's education with whatever religious material they prefer. Thus, there exists a market for religious education, but not secular. If the government gets out of the education business, you better believe that lots of enterprising people will open secular schools and then you can have your pick. > >>Besides, why is it my job to *guarantee* that you can send your children >>to school for free? If you can't afford to raise them, then don't have >>them. Really, why should I pay taxes for education my entire life when >>kids only go to school for 12-16 years? > > > The same reason you should pay taxes for roads you don't drive > on--because at all stages of life having an educated workforce benifits > you, just as it benifits you for people (eg utility companies) to drive > on roads you particularly don't use. Or would you rather not pay your > doctor to pass high school anatomy and biology? > You misunderstand. Roads are there, if for nothing else, for the government. They permit the military to move about, they permit the various agencies charged with various functions to carry out those functions. They also enable commerce, which is necessary for a healthy economy and society. However, the biggest difference between education and roads is scale. It is reasonable to expect a family to educate 1 or 2 or 6 children. It is not reasonable to expect a private citizen to build a road. > As to the free--I don't plan on having children before I can afford > them, but that doesn't help the middle class who can't afford most > private schools (the ones I've seen advertised aren't cheap), but > can otherwise afford to raise children in a decent environment. Do you > purport that you must be wealthy to raise children, or just well enough > off? > You don't have to be wealthy. You just live in a smaller house, drive a used sedan instead of a new SUV, that sort of thing. Alternatively, we could quit taxing the daylights out of people for education, give them that money back and then they can maintain the same standard of living *and* pay for their kids' education. > >>Besides, my contempt of public education has little to do with my >>religious beliefs and more to do with the utterly dismal quality of them. >> >> >>>And yes, I had a nearly 100% secular learning experience, and we got the >>>one temp for was trying to preach at us disinvited to return; my >>>teaching was more than adequate prep for college; those aren't >>>unreasonable demands. >>> >> >>Ah. So you want a venue where you as a student can get a teacher >>disinvited to return. That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking >>about with public education. The kids basically run the schools. Not >>to say that this doesn't happen in expensive prep schools either, but >>that is the beauty of private education. I can take my kids and dollars >>to another school. I can't do that in the public school system. > > > Sure you can. Nothing's forcing you to have your kids in public > schools. And shopping around for a good public school district is part > of being a responsible parent if you can't afford/don't like private > school. > What about if you are in the military and get stationed in Arkansas? Then what? Or somewhere with an insanely high cost of living? The point is that if all education was private, you could live where you want send your kids to school where you want and it wouldn't matter that you weren't in the "right district." > Plus, she was blatantly violating the schools policy (based on > the secretary of the Department of Education) that you cannot teach > religious tenets as matters of fact in the public school system. > Please see my previous comments about the quality of education since the creation of the Department of Education. > >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> Income taxes, hell yes. Consumption taxes levied equally upon >>>>>>all? No. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Consumption taxes are a regressive (targeting the poor) idea that the >>>>>Right Wing has touted for years. >>>>> >>>> >>>>For an example of a consumption tax that is super-advantageous to the >>>>poor, please go review the FiarTax. >>> >>> >>>It's a very interesting idea (I just read a brief on it). It would be >>>interesting to see it at work, I'm not sure if people would look at the >>>23% sales tax and balk at buying any luxuries, though. But then I don't >>>know much about tax systems besides that I put money in and file for a >>>refund the beginning of the next year, so take my thoughts for what you >>>will... >>> >> >>If you can, read the book. If not, watch the debate that Neal Boortz >>had with Michael Graetz: >> >>http://www.booktv.org/Feature/index.asp?schedid=412&segid=6995 >> >>Graetz has some good points, but I still think that the FairTax is the >>way to go. > > > I didn't see the book mentioned on www.fairtax.org -- is there somewhere > else I should look for it? I will check out the debate. > Check amazon or barnes and noble. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature