Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
On 2006-04-30, Curt Howland penned:
>
> On Saturday 29 April 2006 21:43, Christopher Nelson
> <chris@cavein.org> was heard to say:
>> That's your right, but unless you can *gaurantee* that I can, for
>> no cost, send my children to a 100% secular school with decent
>> teaching, there is no way I can support abolishing public schools.
>
> "for no cost, send my children..."?
>
> For no cost.
>
> This is the economics taught in public school? By teachers who must
> be paid, in buildings that must be maintained, on busses that must
> be fueled? "NO COST"???
>
> Let me guess, you vote too. "Let's see, which one promises to give
> me something for nothing? Ah! He gets my vote!"
People, even very smart people, make this mistake all the time. I was
talking to someone recently who said that rather than paying for the
recycling of difficult to recycle materials (ie, computer equipment),
it should be paid for by the government or by the manufacturer.
*blinkblink*
"You do realize that if the government pays for it, it will be covered
by taxes, and if the manufacturer pays for it, the prices will go up,
right?"
That being said, it does seem to me that people are more likely to
recycle goods if it's "free" because of taxation/purchase price than if
they have to pay directly when they recycle.
--
monique
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Reply to: