Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Who pays for education - knee jerk reactions
Message-ID: <233@fornax.uucp>
Date: Sun, 8-Mar-87 03:45:24 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.233
Posted: Sun Mar  8 03:45:24 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 23:31:27 EST
References: <224@fornax.uucp> <2786@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 54

> In article <224@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes:
> >If a child only kept company with me as long as I lavished $$ on her/him
> >and showed no appreciation I would consider them a spoiled brat.  I'm
> >not sure what you can say about adults who want to be able to behave
> >in the same manner.
> 
> Unless John's plan is retroactive I would have neither anything to gain
> nor to lose because of it. I also have no expectations of the
> government lavishing me with anything. What I do have is a belief in a

 You miss the point again. This comment was not intended to describe
you. It was a reference to those who believe I should pay for their
education and get nothing in return (and who are ready to take off
the minute they have their goodies).

> couple of principles: namely that education is a *right*, and emigrants
> should not be penalized because they no longer consider their future to
> be in their homeland. 
> 
> It is useful to realize that there are other reasons for leaving ones
> homeland than the potential for earning bigger bucks. E.g., family
> reunification, greater career opportunities (which does not necessarily
> mean more money), and/or a political climate more in tune with the

All true and all irrelevant to the point(s) which seem to be under
discussion.

> individual's way of thinking. Requiring a person to pay a tax in order
> to rejoin his loved ones seems like an amazingly petty maneuver to me,
> yet is exactly what would happen under John's plan.

Wrong again - why do you persist in attempting to mislead people into
the idea that paying for a benefit recieved is akin to exthortion??

> 
> At any rate, the bottom line here is that a would-be emigrant has to
> buy his way out of the country. A situation that I, coming from a

Nonsense. Please have someone read you the original article. All a person
would have to do is pay for a service rendered and voluntarily accepted.

.
. 
> >can make more money??  If they like these other places so much let
> >them go and try to get a cheap education "there".
> 
> Ever heard of "America, love it or leave it!" The above statement (not
> to mention the whole idea idea behind an emigration tax) reminds me of
> that little piece of American jingoism. I think I'll take what's behind

I figured you would say that (actually I wasn't sure whether it would
be you or Brad) but I decided to post it anyway.  Telling people to
go with the system of their choice is not jingoism. "if you don't
like frigid winters move somewhere warm" is not jingoism .