On Monday 01 May 2006 14:29, Steve Lamb wrote: > Matthias Julius wrote: > > So there are people without children who pay for public education. > > This means the average parent who has kids in a public school is > > paying less than what he would have to if he had to pay it all by > > himself. > > Yes, because the childless person just doesn't need that money at all. > Nope. They exist solely to subsidize the lifestyle choices of those with > children. You directly benefit (even without kids) by being surrounded by (relatively) educated people. Just like freeways: While bicycles may be allowed on most of them, odds are bicyclists are paying for miles of urban freeway that is closed to bicycles. Is it fair that people who get around by bicycle on roads that, in many states they have a constitutional right to ride on, have to pay for freeways that you have to earn the priveledge of a driver's license to use? Yes, because odds are they indirectly benefit by the freeway being there by the availability of goods that would otherwise be stuck at the rail depot, seaport, or entirely different city without urban freeways. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber
Attachment:
pgplYXYRN2Snv.pgp
Description: PGP signature