 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
|
(...) I could argue the point that in fact I (and my parents) paid more into the system than we have benefited from it, and I could do so for every example you cite, I think, if I chose to do so. (as a sketch, for the first one, the computer's (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
|
(...) But underlying technology is only one aspect. If any of the designers (at MS, Intel, or wherever) went to a public school or received a government grant for college or for subsequent research, then you are benefitting from public money. I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
|
(...) Have you thought through to the logical conclusion of the path you're following? The logical conclusion is that there should be no private money at all. But then that raises an interesting question: Who decides what is reasonable to spend (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
|
(...) Only insofar as THEY derived a benefit... if what they paid in taxes covered the education services they received, then no... in fact one could argue that I ought to get a credit in my accounting if what they paid was more. But this could (...) (20 years ago, 7-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
|
(...) Might the logical conclusion instead be that there should be no money at all, without niggling about public vs. private? I don't suggest that I have a fully fleshed-out alternative to offer, but it seems clear that the consensual hallucination (...) (20 years ago, 7-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
