From: Stathis Papaioannou (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2008 - 21:02:58 MDT
On 19/04/2008, Byrne Hobart <email@example.com> wrote:
> Are you claiming that capitalism must not provide for education, else why
> would people tax capitalists to provide it? I usually try to go for higher
> standards of proof than "People act as if it were so." I would also note
> that if you stroll around the average American campus, you will find lots of
> buildings named after Stanford and Tepper and Brown and Yale -- all rich
> capitalists who gave millions to start colleges. Perhaps I haven't traveled
> enough to see 'Taxpayer hall' and 'voter for proposition authorizing bond
> issue earmarked for education memorial cafeteria'.
Do you really want to emphasise that capitalism provides for education
and basic science through charity?
> > The point of a public health system is not that it is paid for by
> > taxes but that it efficiently provides excellent health care for all
> > the country's citizens, and there would only be a handful of
> > achievements that are as important as that.
> It is interesting, then, that advocates of national health care don't try to
> start businesses operated like the European health care cartels, but instead
> demand government intervention. If that is the unimportant part, why do they
> spend all their time on it and not on what you claim is the important part?
> Your theories introduce a lot of confusion, but they don't seem to have much
> explanatory power. Elaboration is in order.
Why do most governments, even those of a right wing bent, provide for
publicly funded health and education but not publicly funded food? Is
it because food is less important?
-- Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT