I appreciate your Libertarian argument and may agree to it as an ideal. We
do not, however, live in an anarchic Libertarian utopia. We live in a
democracy/republic (that's for you, John A.). Our citizens, through their
elected officials, make decisions all the time as to how much should be
collected in taxes and to what ends those tax dollars are put. So long as
we, as a society, agree that we will pay taxes and that we see education as
a "societal good", then I agree with Martin that it should be tax supported.
I also agree with Danny, as you quoted from his book, that "WE SHOULD
ENCOURAGE AND SPONSOR AS GREAT A VARIETY AS POSSIBLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
SCHOOLS, BASED ON THE DREAMS AND IDEALS OF AS MANY THOUGHTFUL EDUCATORS AS
ARE AVAILABLE, AND LET THE PUBLIC AND HISTORY, CHOOSE FREELY AMONG THEM.
PLURALISM SHOULD BE THE GOAL, NOT SLAVISH IMITATION OF ONE MAN'S BLUEPRINT
FOR SUCCESS." (emphasis yours)
As to the purely philosophical argument, I have been at various times in my
life strongly drawn toward the Rand/Branden/Objectivist/Libertarian point of
view. I worry now more about the ability of market forces to see the longer
term, big picture as well as they see the shorter term, immediate reward
picture. A case in point is Dubya saying that he doesn't want environmental
protection to hurt the economy. In the short term it is true that putting in
place environmental protections costs money that would otherwise go to
profits/employees/shareholders. In the long term, however, environmental
degradation costs us all much more and is almost impossible to track to any
particular source for reparations. We all pay and we all suffer for the
short-sightedness of market forces. Now, I know that Dubya ain't no
Libertarian and I am not arguing that he is. I am saying, however, that he
represents the case for market forces being the driving factor, as versus
being only one factor.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Rovner" <email@example.com>
> Martin Wilke wrote:
> >Education should NOT be COMPULSORY BUT TAX SUPPORTED.
> If some men are entitled BY RIGHT to the products of the work of others,
> that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
> Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the
> another, is not and cannot be a right.
> No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded
duty or an
> involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such things as "THE
> TO ENSLAVE."
> A right does not include the material implementation of that right by
other men; it
> includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort.
David quoted Danny Greenberg:
> IS THERE AN "IDEAL SCHOOL" FOR THE NATION?
> A few years ago, when the U.S. Secretary of Education William
> unleashed upon an unsuspecting nation his blueprint for a "dream high
> governed by an "ideal" core curriculum, which he was gracious enough to
> Bennett's comments sent shock waves through the educational and lay
> People everywhere rushed to compare their local high schools to the
> and bestowed lavish praise on those that best measured up. Even the
> Bennett his basic premise, and differed for the most part on details of
> curriculum should contain.
> Now as far as I'm concerned, William Bennett is as entitled as
anyone to let us
> know what his dream school looks like. He is a qualified professional
with long and
> distinguished public service, and his views certainly deserve a respectful
> problem I have is with the implication, strengthened by Bennett's POWERFUL
> POSITION as dispenser of trainloads of money, that Bennett's dream has to
> the nation's model as well. If you looked closely, you could see the
armies of grant
> applicants all over the positioning their strategies around flattering
> Bennett's wish.
> The truth is that the millions of youngsters growing up in America
> entering a world more varied than any other in history, and becoming even
> complex every year. No one, however brilliant, has the foggiest idea what
> holds, or how we will get there. It is absurd on the face of it to think
that any one
> model, any single form, is appropriate for the education of children. Let
> propose one ideal, and let others throughout the land propose theirs, but
> Secretary of Education should really be saying IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
> PROMOTER OF THE NATIONAL WELFARE is that WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE AND
> SPONSOR AS GREAT A VARIETY AS POSSIBLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
> SCHOOLS, BASED ON THE DREAMS AND IDEALS OF AS MANY THOUGHTFUL
> EDUCATORS AS ARE AVAILABLE, AND LET THE PUBLIC AND HISTORY, CHOOSE
> FREELY AMONG THEM. PLURALISM SHOULD BE THE GOAL, NOT SLAVISH
> IMITATION OF ONE MAN'S BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS.
> It is no small irony that a Republican administration which loudly
> belief in diversity, in local control, and in decentralization of power,
should condone the
> notion that a single ideal format, emanating from Washington, is suitable
> everyone,everywhere. Is there really as little difference between
> Republicans as this example might indicate?
> I think we should let Secretary Bennett know that we appreciate the
> thought he has given to the question of schooling for the young, and we
> but most emphatically, disagree with his fundamental premise that models
> nationwide emulation. *DIVERSITY* should be the guiding principle in these
> rapid change, and from the experience we gain in time by observing
> possibilities we may eventually discern the outlines of the forms that
will serve us well
> in the future.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:28 EST