> Mark N argues that the government should quit >meddling with individuals' educations. He
>said, "It's not the place of our government to >solve everyone's problems." Interestingly, you >can parse this statement two ways. Mark might >have just said that it's not the place of the >government to solve all of the problems that are >of concern to anyone. Or, he might have just >said that the government can solve any >problem /except/ for problems that /everyone/ >cares about.

It is not the place of the government to solve the problems of everyone. Our government has a responsibility to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The have the right to enforce law and defend us. But in my opinion, they don't have the right to try to fix everything. In trying to eliminate poverty and debt, they tax businesses and hurt the economy. It's estimated that taking the income tax off of businesses would create 20 million new jobs. But instead our wonderful government decides that it can spend the cash better than the rest of us, and thinks that propsperity will come faster and better if they're the ones in charge. I disagree.

In the system in which we have now, my parents would have an easier time paying for my college education if they went out and bought a Lambourgini. Then they could claim need based scholarships and grants, and have the government pay for my education. The principle of the idea sounds nice: have the government help poor families send their kids off to college. But in reality, people just manipulate the system, and



> So why don't we live in such a system, where >education is paid for only by those who need it? >Well, because we don't live in a pure capitalist >anarchy, that's why. But let me put it another >way. In a pure capitalist anarchy, there is no >such thing as "rights". Everything you have, >you /earn/. People do not have a guaranteed >right to property, for example -- but they can >hire a protection agency to protect what is >theirs. People do not have a guaranteed right to >roads, or decent health care, or to sanitary >food in restaurants -- but if people pay enough >money to the corporations that build roads, or >to corporations that own hospitals, or to >organizations that enforce private health >standards on restaurants, then they can /earn/ >these things. And what about the people who >don't have enough money to afford those things >today, in Canada and in the United States, are >considered basic rights? Well, if they worked >harder, maybe then they could afford them, >couldn't they!

We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a right to seek to become propserous. But we don't have a right to happiness, and we don't have the right to prosperity.

"If a man shall not work, neither shall he eat"-a Bible quote that means a lot to me. To have the government tax those who are propserous to feed those who are not is wrong. The number of people in welfare and the number of people unemployed continues to rise. The government paying people not to work has not solved the problem. It has only increased it.

Only in communism is equal propsperity a right. In capitilism, your prosperity is proportional to how hard you work.

It's not a perfect system. Some people will be on the bottom end of the ladder, and have a hard time working their way up. Such individuals should be helped by charity, the church, and by those who are prosperous... but voluntarily. A system which just redistributes income for nothing is unjust.

>It saddens and angers me that people should >suggest that the government of a nation should >not be responsible for the education of a >nations' children. The government should not >shirk its responsibility to its future by >handing it to private schools. It must provide a >schooling system for every American child, one >that every child, not only those who can afford >it, can attend.

Governments don't have a responsibility to shirk. PARENTS have the responsbility to see to the education of their children. PEOPLE have the responsbility to take care of themselves. I have the responsbility to look for a job. The government doesn't have the responsbility to find one for me.

Keep the government out of education. In California, they'd like to make homeschooling illegal because they see it as in inferior education system. Maybe it is. But the choice is not the government's to make. Let parents have the freedom to choose the schools for their children. My parents have homeschooled me, but because of the taxes they pay for the public schools, they are having a difficult time paying for my education. The current system limits the freedom of parents and the monopoly on education in the public schools will not easily be broken. Until it is though, the public schools will continue to degrade and parents who choose a better system will continue to be at a financial disadvantage.

I have some more to say... but I've got to get going.

Mark"It's about my arguments, not me"N