Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcr!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: who should pay for education. sort of.
Message-ID: <2770@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 19:11:34 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2770
Posted: Mon Mar  2 19:11:34 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Mar-87 05:36:19 EST
References: <215@fornax.uucp>
Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto
Lines: 105
Summary: 

In article <215@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.UUCP dreams:
>So a suggestion: make tuition free or nearly so as long as grades
>are acceptable, i.e. give everyone who can benefit from school a
>scholarship for their tuition. Allow people whose academic performance
>is not acceptable to attend but have them pay the true cost of
>the education.  Insist that people whose tuition is paid sign
>a promissory note for the full cost of their education which would
>become payable if and when they decided to leave the country on a
>permanent basis.  
>.
>.
>..............  Also it is probably not reasonable to expect a
>lump sum payment upon exiting the country but a reasonable payment
>scheme in inflation indexed dollars at prevailing interest rates
>would be acceptable.
>
>Comments?

Comment 1

I consider education to be a *right*. As long as a person has the
ability he should be able to obtain an education at minimal cost
(preferably almost free). If one accepts the notion that education is a
right then it should not be possible for the state, in its infinite
wisdom, to in effect hold education ransom. This is John Chapman's
suggestion. Given that few "ordinary Canadians" could afford the full
cost of university tuition, he would have the state say to us "If you
agree to behave in a manner that we find acceptable, then we'll permit
you to get an education". This is Big Brother in all his glory.

Comment 2 

Another way of looking at what John is suggesting is to consider it as
an emigration tax (and a hefty one at that). Since the free movement of
the citizenry is one of the basic tenets of a free society, I find the
notion of an emigration tax, and therefore John's suggestion, to be
extremely abhorrent. 

Comment 3

Why stop at university education, John? Don't you know it costs several
thousand dollars just to deliver a baby? And how about the cost of
primary and secondary education? What about other medical costs?  Why
shouldn't these costs have to be reimbursed as well? They also
represent investments in the individual. Seems to me post secondary
education costs are just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, I bet that
with a bit of creative accounting the state could arrange it such that
one would have to be a Bronfman to be able to afford to emigrate.

Comment 4

The notion of a "reasonable payment scheme in inflation indexed dollars
at prevailing interest rates" is impractical. Anyone leaving the
country "on a permanent basis" will quite rightly tell the state to
shove its repayment scheme into a certain place that net etiquette
prevents me from mentioning. Since I doubt that many countries
(excepting those in the Communist bloc which have already implemented
this scheme) would go along with making this an extraditable offence,
the state would be left with no alternative but to demand full payment
on departure, in effect disallowing the possibility of "legal"
emigration for most. So you see, Mr. Chapman, it would be necessary
to build a big wall along the "longest undefended border in the world".
The state could mine it and place machine gun wielding sentries around
it and ..... well I'm sure you get the gist of it.

Comment 5

It is quite possible that this suggestion violates our gutless Charter.

Comment 6

In order for it to be worth the paper work (not to mention the cost of
the wall) it would have to be necessary for a significant percentage of
this country's professionals to be fleeing. Since this is not the case
now, I tend to wonder what other interesting ideas may be floating
around in the heads of those-who-know-what's-best that could result in
such a dramatic turn of events. Anyone care to enlighten us?

Comment 7

At the risk of stereotyping I have to say that John's suggestion is
extremely typical of socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer)
thinking: 

First off, decide what is "best" for society, giving only
minor considerations as to whether the individual's rights suffer as a
result. Then, when the individual refuses to go along with this latest
version of Utopia, enact oppressive legislation that forces him to do
so. 

J.B. Robinson

We've taken care of everything
The words you read
The songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure
To your eye
One for all and all for one
Work together
Common sons
Never need to wonder
How or why			RUSH - 2112

I'm sure that any and all self-respecting nationalists know who RUSH
is.