[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> writes:

> Matthias Julius wrote:
>> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> writes:
>>>Then that's what you would do with private education.
>> I thought you were suggesting home schooling.
> Either private education or homeschool.  Either way, it's not like the
> penalty levied on people now becuase they pay taxes for public
> education, whether they use it (or ever would) or not.

You can not homeschool when you need to go to work.

You feel it as a penalty.  I think it is a necessity.  People pay
taxes (indirectly) based on their income.  People who contribute less
than they would have to pay for tuition benefit from the public school
system.  This is the whole point.  Of course, this assumes public
schools provide the education they are meant to.

>>>Yes.  Please see my previous comments about the Postal Service as an
>>>example of how this *could* work.  I still maintain that all private is
>>>the way to go, but there are other ways it could work.  As long as the
>>>proposed method doesn't involve forcible redistribution of wealth, I am
>>>all for it.
>> I'm afraid it would not work without it.  Do you want to base the
>> education of children who's parents can not afford to pay for the
>> education of their kids on voluntary redistribution of wealth, on
>> charity?  Or how do you think it should be paid for?
> I think it is the responsibility of the parent.  Just like feeding and
> clothing a child.  What happens when a parent does not feed or cloth a
> child?  The child is removed from the home for neglect and placed into
> foster care.  I don't see why it should be any different for school.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the parents to care for their
children.  But, how about those who are unable to?  Those who are
unwilling to should get their children removed.


Reply to: