From: Doug Hughes <Doug.Hughes@Eng.Auburn.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 07:01:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
In-Reply-To: <9605150233.AA20633@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <doug-9604151409.AA00354281@netman.eng.auburn.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



 "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon@citenet.net> wrote:
>On 14 May 96 at 10:57, Doug Hughes wrote:
>
>
>> Who says they make a choice
>> to live in rural areas? 
>
>Why? were they lobotomized?
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.
>
>> Do they also choose not to have enough money
>> to pay for shoes?
>
>You got to choose to do what is needed to live a better life.  And 
>most of them ain't doing what it takes.
>

Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live
there because they are not trying hard enough to get out?  
(I'm using rural West Virgina as an example. Many people do get
a good education and move elsewhere, but not all) Don't bother
answering. If you think this is the case, that is your opinion, but
I disagree.


>> So, because they live in a poor district they are
>> not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city suburb? 
>> The illiteracy rate in Alabama is 40%! This is just plain sick!
>
>When I was a kid, everything that had characters printed on it was 
>readable.  Who is *preventing* them from reading?

environment, lack of education, lack of money, lots of factors. Nobody
is holding a gun to anybody's head saying "Don't Read". But improving
literacy is a goal that needs to be undertaken. Do you not agree that
low literacy is a bad thing and needs to be taken care of? If not, why
not? Naturally, you can't force someone to read who doesn't want to.
But, why, given a good learning environment and an inspiring teacher
would you not want to?
>
>> 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.
>Please, substantiate your claims with in-context arguments.
>

Some people on this list argue that the current representative govt
system is bad, and that true democracy is better. You can't have true
democracy without education. (You can, but it would be very bad).
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)

>
>> 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
and those with more money should of necessity get better education? 
Because that's what it sounds like to me. If not, perhaps you would
care to clarify.  You can vote that poor people shouldn't be educated
at all, but that would be worse than paying for them to be more educated.


>> the tone of
>> the above message is callous, besides being wrong.
>In *my* opinion, it is right on the money.  But if you can stand 
>reality, then I understand why you rant...
>
>BTW, I do not understand the "logics" that want to bring everybody 
>down because some individuals are down.  This is a system that punish 
>achievement for being achievement and value meekness for itself.
>A total, anti-life aberration.
>

You don't understand at all. It's not about being people down, it's
about bringing them 'UP'. It's about devaluing lack of education and
striving to improve it. I'm not talking about welfare, medicare, or
any other big govt entitlements. I'm not talking about being meek.
I'm talking about learning to read and multiply 4*9.

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.

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. It's going to cost some tax dollars, but, in my opinion
it would be money well spent (unlike building the rural Appalachia
country music museum - which was completely wasted money). I also
point out that there are poor people out there that can't afford to
move from rural out-lands, unless you want them to move into
govt subsidized housing. I'd gladly take the former, wouldn't you?

Not posting any more on this.

--
____________________________________________________________________________
Doug Hughes					Engineering Network Services
System/Net Admin  				Auburn University
			doug@eng.auburn.edu
		Pro is to Con as progress is to congress