BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 12:06 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight
them all the time.

Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?

No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money from
people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual
parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't pay,
don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches and
harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and
at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens.

Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future starting
with infancy. Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity. My, what a
beautiful world you would build.

"Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash
collection to access to federal lands, why not education too?

It's just that usual nonsense about trying to give all kids a reasonable
opportunity to access what the world has to offer.

Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable
contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even
businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy for
them to support education for the next generation of workers they will need
to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be far
more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a
non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an
appendix.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.