[long irrelevant post] Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996

["Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon@citenet.net>]

Apologies to other CPunks.  I hate theses posts, but I just couldn't 
let it pass by.

On 15 May 96 at 9:09, Doug Hughes wrote:

> No, because they are too poor to live in your neighborhood.
> Sure, they can live in the same geographic region, but it's still
> rural and poor. People live where they can afford to live. 
Just like volition-free cows?


> Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live
> there because they are not trying hard enough to get out?

Maybe they lack the knowledge.  But does that justify turning me
into a milk cow for them?  Should I break my leg because somebody
else did?  Should the common euphemism "to provide" justify the
common euphemism "to redistribute wealth"?  Or in straight talk,
should we distribute free-lunches that were took away at the point
of a gun from peoples who produced them by their own work?

 
> >> So, because they live in a poor district they are
> >> not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city
> >> suburb?
Not because they don't live in a rich suburb, simply because they 
cannot pay for it.  Breathing air does not entitle you to anything that 
is produced by another breather of air...


> environment, lack of education, lack of money, lots of factors.
Who is responsible for it, who should be considered "response-able"?

> Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying "Don't Read".
Here is an example of "creative mis-reading".  What I meant by gun is 
why hold a gun to *my* head for having them to read?


> improving literacy is a goal that needs to be undertaken. 
You are free to donate as much of your *own personnal* earnings to 
them.  Feel free to do!

I, for one, like to help kids to learn to read, to use a microscope, 
to learn chemistry and physics and maths and sciences in general.  I 
always give my time to any kid that needs help, wether he is 5 years 
old in first grade or 25 in university.  But why stick a gun in my 
back to get part of my paycheck?

> agree that low literacy is a bad thing
Yes, absolutely.

> and needs to be taken care
> of? 

At whose expense?

> But, why, given a good learning environment and an
> inspiring teacher would you not want to?

You'd be surprized how so many peoples just don't care.  We have here 
a *free* education system up to high school.  Then college, which is 
not very expensive.  Then university that cost around 2000$(US) per 
year.  But still, we have one of the highest rate of dropping out in 
the world.  And all collectivists their with grand schemes wonder why...

> But the statement that
> we shouldn't subsidize >> rural customers because they CHOOSE to
> live there (even though some >> are poor and can't afford to live
> anywhere else) is just plain >> fallacious.

Agreed.  But you are building a worst straw man.  The only reason is
that we should not turn some productive individuals into a milk cow
for thoses that are less productive.  And the source of the whealth
necessary for your grand schemes are those most productive
individuals turned into sacrificial animals.  Under any governmental
red tape pile of paper lies a GUN.


> Some people on this list argue that the current representative govt
> system is bad, and that true democracy is better.
But again, some other peoples think that true democracy, i.e. the 
dictature of the majority, wouldn't be better, mainly because the 
issues are too numerous and the individual's knowledge is too 
limited.  Some Cypherpunks want, is "Live and let live", some other "Live 
and let die" and a few even proposed "Live and let live, of get 
killed" or "mind your own business or get a prize on your head"... 

> True democracy relies on people being educated, the more the
> better. (Actually, education benefits the entire society.)


 
> >> Just because you choose to live in the city does not
> >> mean people always choose to live where they live.

> >Who cast their feet in concrete blocks?

> Where is somebody making less than $5000/year going to move to?
> (Answer: somewhere rural and poor).  Or, if you prefer, they can
> move into tax-payer subsidized housing? (I'd prefer not, thanks)

I lived on that for several years.  It was not easy but I could still 
learn and read.  Actually, it is almost the sole thing I did during 
theses years.  And I am not talking about our almost free education 
system.  

> >> Education is one
> >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in
> >> this country. 
> >I think that it should not be subsidized.

> >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. 
> >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same?  What if
> >I do not want to do the same as you?

> Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards,
> increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining
> socio-economic structure.



> Are you arguing that people are not equal
Absolutely.  Why is it that my friends always got straight A's while 
I got C's or D's...

> and those with more money should of necessity get better education?

What somersault of rationalization made you conclude that?
Thoses with more money can *afford* more.  Only that fact.

> You can vote that poor people shouldn't be
> educated at all

What you are telling here is that education is *only* a direct 
function of wealth and that wealth is strictly a direct function of 
education.  I am sorry to tell you that reality clearly show that 
this basic premise is not true.


> You don't understand at all. It's not about being people down, it's
> about bringing them 'UP'.

Dear Doug, would you please tell me where you will take the 
ressources to bring peoples up?  I have no objection if you were 
setting up some sort of charity fund.


> I'm not talking about being meek.
> I'm talking about learning to read and multiply 4*9.
It was done in the days of non-mandatory, non-subsidized education.  

Actually, the country (USA) had it's biggest growing period in thoses 
days.  The improvement slowed down with the advent of collectivist 
schemes.


> I'm not getting into this anymore. It's totally off topic of the
> list, but I felt I had to respond to your
> let-the-poor-be-poor-and-uneducated posting.

Not at all.  The essence of my post is "do not treat productive individual as 
sacrificial animal for the unearned benefit of the less productives".

You see, I do not believe in sacrifice nor in original sin...

> We're straying far off even my point. My point was not that I agree
> with subsidizing internet connections for every school in america.
> I'd have to be convinced that that is a good thing. However, making
> sure everybody has a good education is of paramount importance to
> any society.

I am of the opinion that giving the country a thorough coverage of 
the net is of paramount importance.  But I do not think that the govt 
is thinking the same, notwithstanding what it says.

I suggest you try to set up a foundation to promote the private setup 
of inter-villages links in rural areas.  It would be great.

But to tax for that, to confiscate money from producers against their 
best judgment and will?

OTOH, you might be operationnally (while not ethically) right.  I'd
rather be taxed for the installation of the net than for some
museum...

JFA

 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee  
 Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses

 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants.
 Physists, technologists and engineers.

 PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
 ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
 
 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h
 Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac-
 cepted the above mentionned terms.