Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Renata wrote:
|
|| Just a short reply to some of your comments (I wanna get outta
|| here)...
||
|| On 07 Oct 2005 10:15:58 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
|| wrote:
||
||| Renata wrote:
|||
|||| What's your proposal for educatin' the populace, pray tell?
|||
||| Why do I have to have one? I don't have a proposal for instilling
||| religion in everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
||| clothing everyone else's children. I don't have a proposal for
||| inflicting particular personal values on everyone else's chidren.
||| These, and a host of other things, are the job of the *parents*
||| not a meddlesome program of public theft and wealth
||| redistribution. Government as an instrument of education is
||| analogous to having Michael Jackson run a day-camp for 12 year
||| old boys.
||
|| Education is the responsibility of parents only as far as making
|| sure the kids get a good one. Most parents aren't gonna be
|| capable, have
|
| That's a lovely assertion. Now justify why it's OK to raid
| one man's wallet and make him pay for another man's children's
| education. It's theft plain and simple.

Individual and group survival is enhanced in proportion to the extent
of knowledge and skills held by the individual and the group(s) of
which that individual is a part.

All societies and cultures of which I'm aware make demands on members'
resources. In this society one of those demands is for the resources
to imbue the largest possible number of young people with knowledge
and skills that (we hope) will ensure their (and our) survival.

It's theft only to those members of society who feel their personal
aims are more important than the survival of other members or of the
society itself.

For such individuals, there is an easy remedy: they can remove
themselves from that society and refuse (or be denied) any and all all
of the benefits derived from the contributions of the willing members.

I completely agree - you should not be obliged to make an unwilling
contribution. The problem is - where can you go?

| Oh ... never mind. Let's not go there. Besides,
| I've already seen that movie. It's called "collectivism" and
| was responsible for untold human misery over history ...

You might have come in late to that movie. There was an important
point that you missed: in collectivism, your contribution is 100% of
everything. In extreme cases, that "everything" can include your
personal survival.

But it does offer an interesting insight: Groups that fail to provide
for survival of the individual generally don't survive as groups.

Hmm...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html