It seems that to this otherwise well-educated lawmaker, the internet is quite literally such a mystical place that he has concocted an elaborate, entirely false explanation for how it works to appease his human desire to explain things. It's fascinating really.
No, not really. Its very very sad. To start off with, although he may not know how the internet works, he certainly knows it was created by man, and that there ARE people out there that understand the thing.
So, its nothing at all like the origins of older myth. Its just someone that doesn't really understand the technology.
The claque of liberals you refer to would just as soon have Saddam Hussein still be in power. They're not ready to acknowledge there was any value at all in 'liberating' Iraq. Things were 'fine the way they are.'
There wasn't any value in it, no matter how much you believe there to be. People need to 'liberate' themselves, not have some 3rd party come and do it for them.
We're not talking about people who understand World politics or 'Human Rights' beyond the level of bumper sticker slogans, you know...
I'm sure you claim to be an expert in world polictics too. Somehow I doubt you're any more of an 'expert' than anyone else here.
Why would that work? After all, isn't one of the big differences between Christians and Jews that Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of god? Its possible Muslims still wouldn't accept Jesus as anything either.
a) They might have the union on their ass if the threatened teacher complains nothing was done
They can tell the union that they don't see the icon as a threat and to calm the fuck down.
b) God forbid, the kid actually carries out his threat and then government and police officials will be on their ass asking why they ignored a clear message like this
Is there any evidence at all that the kid even meant the icon as a threat? No. For all you know, thats where his anger stopped. Its quite normal for kids to express themselves through art (which this is, by the way).
c) Its a stupid joke, and its not funny at all. Its a passive aggressive way to bully the said teacher.
YOU don't think its funny, I'm sure there are people out there who do. If you can reconize that, the I suggest you shut yourself in your house and never come out again. I find it hard to believe that the icon is a passive agressive way to bully the teacher, considering the teacher would never have known about it if the other student didn't report it. I think its reasonable to believe that the kid never thought the teacher would see it, so the threat angle is out totally. More likely, he was expressing his anger at the teacher, which makes you wonder what exactly the teacher did that prompted him to create the icon in the first place.
His actions created "an environment threatening the health, safety and welfare of others, and his actions created disruption in the school environment".
No, it didn't. Prove that it did. And some over reacting moron isn't proof either.
Schools have a legitimate interest in student behavior outside the school. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.
No they don't. Its not the schools job to raise the child, only educate them in science, math, etc. To suggest that the school should have any power once your kid leaves the class room is idiotic.
Why should you get in trouble for pictures like that? Drawing a picture doesn't mean you're going to do anything. More likely, its the creation of the picture itself which is the outlet for any anger.
I know, my sister expressed herself this way by writing poems. It was her way of expressing her depression and helped her get through it. Later, she even entered some into some minor competitions.
How exactly would I be freeloading? What direct benefit would I get for free? You never refute anything I said, you just keep repeating yourself over and over again.
Well, you assume wrong, but that's not surprising.
Let me state again as it has been stated many times.. you can put down the phone.
Irrelevent; by the time you HAVE to put down the phone, you'll be in an accident.
And the number of accidents caused by drunk driving is far more than those caused by cellphone usage. (especially serious accidents)
Its easy to see if someone was drunk after an accident; take a blood test. There is no such test for those using cell phones (the cell phone may even be thrown from the car.. and do you think someone would ADMIT the accident was there fault by saying they were on a phone? Nope).
So you want to strip my right to use the cellphone just because some other people (a minority of accidents) blame their bad driving on cellphone usage.
Drunk driving is also only a small percentage of accidents; should we legalize that now?
Well, the studies also show that handsfree is no better than talking with the phone against your ear, so you're advice to use speaker phone doesn't hold up. Pulling over is the only safe thing to do.
How many times to people have to tell you that that YOU benefit from others' kids being educated, so it's only fair for YOU to help pay for it. You just want to freeload.
Because I don't directly benefit from it. Also, because I can't choose who has kids, or how many kids they have, or that they eat a diet which doesn't detract from their learning experience, or make sure the kids actually study.. the list goes on. Given that so much is out of my control, no, there isn't a direct benefit for me to pay for someone else's kids. You're also assuming that most parents wouldn't be able to afford to, which is likely not the case (since most people are parents, the amount of single people NOT paying would be small, and thus the extra cost to parents small as well). You never argue any facts, just this abstract notion (which you can't fully back up) that I benefit by paying for other kids eduction.
Mostly in places where they have trouble enforcing mandatory education. (In these places, the average parent tends to suck even worse than the public schools, so don't blame the school system.) It just goes to prove the point.
Nope, inner citys have poor schools which a majority of students enrolled go to. But you're basically arguing that someone who's a bad parent deserves to take money from me to educate their kid, but doesn't have to make suer that their kid is actually getting that education. Very good idea.
Where did I try to claim that? Oh yeah, I didn't.
Sure you did; at least I can only assume its you, given the tone and same pointless repetition of the same "fact". What else would I owe society in your mind that I'm not already paying for, which you expect me to "pay back"? I can only assume you meant my education (since you never specifically said what it was that I owed society).
Did they even try to teach you reading comprehension, or was it just memorizing bible verses and listenting to rants about how much public schools suck?
Apparently they never taught you logic or debate, because you haven't been doing a very good job of it. FWIW, there was only one period devoted to religion, and the rest of the days periods were math, English, science, etc without any mention of god. Oh, and I never did the bible homework they assigned either. Finally, its listening not listenting. Might want to make sure your writing skills are perfect before you bash others.
I realize that you're bored because you're on summer break now; maybe your parents should have sent you to camp for a few weeks.
Ahh, but he was refering to his mother 'beating the crap' out of him from his perspective as a child.
You're assuming that's what he meant. Given that he is an adult now, he could have chosen another phrase to more accurately convey what he means. He still says 'beating the crap out of him', which leads me to believe he, to this day, believes he got the crap beat out of him.
how many of you people know a foreign language? esp. you americans.
This is the only part I'm going to call you out on. Where exactly is it in America that you'll have problems NOT knowing anything but English? We are an English country, which another English country to our north. I'm sure knowing Spanish near Mexico may be helpful, but how many of us travel into Mexico that often?
There just isn't any reason to know another language here; its not like you cross out of PA and into NY and they are speaking another language. Remember, most states here are as big as countries in Europe. Do the majority of Russians know more than Russian? I'd like to know, as I would think not.
Indeed I think basic healthcare and dentistry should be included as well. To do otherwise is to waste human capital, the most unthinkable crime.
The problem is that no where in there does anyone become encouraged to do for themselves. You do realize that the public healthcare we have now is paying for people that simply WON'T stop eating and start exersicing? That's the problem with viewing healthcare as a right.
I eat nothing but McDs, grow to 400 pounds, and then use the public healthcare system to get an unnessary surgery to lose the weight again. Its happening RIGHT NOW. The only benefit so far is that its insuring a constant stream of work for my wife (who handles the precertification of the surgeries).
And I agree for the most part - except that dosen't cover the freely available end of it. Privatizing schools will simply lead to expensive schools for the rich and less expensive schools with the "undesirables" in them.
Not at all. You still set minimum standards which ALL schools must meet and you still certify teachers. Then you also extend educational loans to those that truely need it. There's no reason parents can't pay and still have the outcome you desire.
here are many countries in Africa where poor kids are put to work (or begging) as soon as they are able, reproduce as soon as they are able, and raise kids to repeat the cycle.
I believe in compsolary education for kids, I'm not advocating we drop that. The ONLY change I'd like to see is a shift in the financial responsibity for education. It should rest on the parents. Also, I have no problems with government education loans being given out. We can have every kid going to school and still keep the burden of those costs on the parents with kids.
Rich people can segregate themselves from an uneducated or badly educated proletariat, but that isn't considered desirable in a classless society.
Excuse me? We don't have a classless society right now and the rich ARE segragated. They live in gated communities or on huge plots of land near other rich people.
While the US and Western Europe have room for improvement, much of our success comes from having more literate, better educated lower classes, relatively speaking, of course.
It seems to me that the lower classes are barely able to speak English.. thanks to the way we're doing public education.
1) When you are retired... those kids will have jobs and be paying the taxes for roads, hospitals, etc. that you will be using.
Being retired won't make my untaxable. I'll still be paying for hospitals, roads and other things, as I'll STILL have an income tax (on SS, which ironically was already taxed when I put in) and I'll be paying sales tax, and gasoline tax, property tax, etc. So even when I'm retired, I'll still be paying for those kinds of things.
2) Alternatively, those kids will not beat the hell out of you and rob you (maybe even kill you) because they got an education and bought in to the system themselves. Denied an education, they become thugs and either a) You pay higher taxes to incarcerate them or b) they take your stuff and/or kill you.
That theory doesn't seem to be working. First, I never said to deny a kid an education. I said their parents should pay for it on their own. Their parents will have less disposable income, yes, but they chose to have kids, did they not? Secondly, the poor people you're worried about aren't getting an education right now. So its more or less money wasted. Maybe if parents were forced to pay for thier kids education seperately (and be compelled to put their kid through school) the parents would be more keen on getting the kid to study, or perhaps move them to a better school.
It is in our own interest for the next generation to be well behaved socialized tax paying members of society.
Look around, and tell me that the current system is doing that right now. I think its also in our best interest to eliminate freeloads from the system as well and to make people more accountable for themselves and their families.
If you went to a private school, then your parents had enough money to pony up so that people who couldn't afford private school could have you know, textbooks and stuff.
People who cannot afford children should not be having them, don't you think?
If you were home schooled, or went to religious school, think of it as a tax assessed against your right to brainwash your own kid (apologies to secular homeschoolers).
FWIW, I did go to a catholic school. Fortunatly, I survived the brainwashing (I no longer believe in those myths).
I know it's popular to think, "I don't use it so I don't care" here, but some of us, my own private schooled ass included, think that there is a little more to the world than screwing poor kids out of an education, and screwing poor old people out of a little pocket change a month.
You should look at the laws than. Before a terminally ill person can get public health insurance, they MUST sell pretty much every worldly thing they've worked for, including their house (which I find odd, because now they have the extra bill of paying rent).
FWIW, it doesn't seem like public education is helping poor kids at all. So besides paying for something which I shouldn't have to, the money taken from me is being wasted. If you think the current system is working, you're not looking at the numbers.
You didn't choose to have a fire service, police service, army, road system or whatever else the state forces you to pay for, yet with all these things, including education, you benefit. Yes, you end up paying for things you might not choose to want - that's true of taxation and the concept of a state in general.
Having fire, police, army and roads around DO benefit me directly though. Your argument is that since we are already taxing for things you may or may not approve of, lets just throw in more? No, lets reduce those things. The government is doing way too much as it is, I'm most certainly in favor of cutting all but the most vital of 'shared services.'
And people who have private health insurance still pay national insurance, and so on.
So who ends up with the most benefit? That's right, those who aren't paying anything into the system at all. For example, my wife does insurance pre-certification; want to guess how many people on Medicad come in for a gastric bypass? The result here is that some fat fuck who we have to pay for (via taxes) can't stop eating, now we have to pay for a surgery because that fat fuck is too lazy to diet and exercise. And then we pay again, as the surgey itself has many complications, even if the patient does what they are supposed to afterwards, and we pay more again because usually they don't, and blow the stomach staples or bands. I'm all in favor of ditching public health insurance.
So both of your arguments apply to taxation in general.
I agree; there should be a bare minimal of services which everyone MUST pay into.
Yes, there's an argument for saying you should only have to pay for things you both (a) benefit from and (b) chose to have, but that basically means you're doing away with the state altogether.
I disagree. We don't have to do away with the state all together; we just have to remove much of the extra crap, and have people become more responsible for things which are really their responsibilty, and stop supporting freeloaders.
Yes but in your system, they'd have to have paid far more for your education.
Raising a child is expensive. Sorry, thats how it is. We are basically allowing people who cannot (or just barely can) support a child to have one, than taking money from those that can afford it or those who choose not to have kids at all. I don't think that's fair.
By the way, are you happy to receive no pension or any other help from the state when you retire, whilst people who have children do receive them? After all, it will be thanks to their children and the education they paid for that there'll be a workforce paying tax, and I don't see why you should benefit from that, when you wanted no part in that.
Pensions are done through the company you for which you work. I don't have that as an option. As it is, there probably WON'T be any money left for SS by the time I retire, as the ponzi scheme is about to collapse. I'm planning my retirement now (still 40 some years away) and I'm not planning on there being any SS when that happens. Justifying one unfair money grab by making people dependant on another doesn't justify either.
(I don't have children, nor do I intend to have them, by the way - but I see the benefits both that people have children, and that they are educated.)
I see the benefits to it as well, but it should be the parents responsibility to provide that education.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that to this otherwise well-educated lawmaker, the internet is quite literally such a mystical place that he has concocted an elaborate, entirely false explanation for how it works to appease his human desire to explain things. It's fascinating really.
No, not really. Its very very sad. To start off with, although he may not know how the internet works, he certainly knows it was created by man, and that there ARE people out there that understand the thing.
So, its nothing at all like the origins of older myth. Its just someone that doesn't really understand the technology.
The claque of liberals you refer to would just as soon have Saddam Hussein still be in power. They're not ready to acknowledge there was any value at all in 'liberating' Iraq. Things were 'fine the way they are.'
There wasn't any value in it, no matter how much you believe there to be. People need to 'liberate' themselves, not have some 3rd party come and do it for them.
We're not talking about people who understand World politics or 'Human Rights' beyond the level of bumper sticker slogans, you know...
I'm sure you claim to be an expert in world polictics too. Somehow I doubt you're any more of an 'expert' than anyone else here.
No, I think the bible describes a god that is pretty childish.
You can do whatever you want, but if you don't do what I want, I'll torture you forever. But remember, i'm all loving. Oh, and no pork on friday.
I'd love to see a psychologists take on god's personality.
So anything good is the church, and anything bad was someone manipulating the church, right?
Ever stop and think that the 'church' is nothing more than the greatest mind control device in history used to manipulate stupid, irrational people?
Really? Jesus is alive? Where is he, I'd like to shake his hand.
Oh wait, he's not alive, and you have no proof to back up your claim.
The study shows that we have common ancestors, which is no suprise. Cats have common ancestors too. Is there a kitty Jesus that ran around too?
You of course assume that these things really happened to begin with, which I doubt.
Why would that work? After all, isn't one of the big differences between Christians and Jews that Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of god? Its possible Muslims still wouldn't accept Jesus as anything either.
You're full of it.
a) They might have the union on their ass if the threatened teacher complains nothing was done
They can tell the union that they don't see the icon as a threat and to calm the fuck down.
b) God forbid, the kid actually carries out his threat and then government and police officials will be on their ass asking why they ignored a clear message like this
Is there any evidence at all that the kid even meant the icon as a threat? No. For all you know, thats where his anger stopped. Its quite normal for kids to express themselves through art (which this is, by the way).
c) Its a stupid joke, and its not funny at all. Its a passive aggressive way to bully the said teacher.
YOU don't think its funny, I'm sure there are people out there who do. If you can reconize that, the I suggest you shut yourself in your house and never come out again. I find it hard to believe that the icon is a passive agressive way to bully the teacher, considering the teacher would never have known about it if the other student didn't report it. I think its reasonable to believe that the kid never thought the teacher would see it, so the threat angle is out totally. More likely, he was expressing his anger at the teacher, which makes you wonder what exactly the teacher did that prompted him to create the icon in the first place.
His actions created "an environment threatening the health, safety and welfare of others, and his actions created disruption in the school environment".
No, it didn't. Prove that it did. And some over reacting moron isn't proof either.
Schools have a legitimate interest in student behavior outside the school. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.
No they don't. Its not the schools job to raise the child, only educate them in science, math, etc. To suggest that the school should have any power once your kid leaves the class room is idiotic.
Why should you get in trouble for pictures like that? Drawing a picture doesn't mean you're going to do anything. More likely, its the creation of the picture itself which is the outlet for any anger.
I know, my sister expressed herself this way by writing poems. It was her way of expressing her depression and helped her get through it. Later, she even entered some into some minor competitions.
The icon wasn't a threat, any idiot can see that.
How exactly would I be freeloading? What direct benefit would I get for free? You never refute anything I said, you just keep repeating yourself over and over again.
Well, you assume wrong, but that's not surprising.
Then correct me.
Goodbye troll.
Let me state again as it has been stated many times.. you can put down the phone.
Irrelevent; by the time you HAVE to put down the phone, you'll be in an accident.
And the number of accidents caused by drunk driving is far more than those caused by cellphone usage. (especially serious accidents)
Its easy to see if someone was drunk after an accident; take a blood test. There is no such test for those using cell phones (the cell phone may even be thrown from the car.. and do you think someone would ADMIT the accident was there fault by saying they were on a phone? Nope).
Well, I'm not sure what kind of data you're looking for, but the handsfree vs. no handsfree has been consistant between these kind of studies.
So you want to strip my right to use the cellphone just because some other people (a minority of accidents) blame their bad driving on cellphone usage.
Drunk driving is also only a small percentage of accidents; should we legalize that now?
Well, the studies also show that handsfree is no better than talking with the phone against your ear, so you're advice to use speaker phone doesn't hold up. Pulling over is the only safe thing to do.
How many times to people have to tell you that that YOU benefit from others' kids being educated, so it's only fair for YOU to help pay for it. You just want to freeload.
Because I don't directly benefit from it. Also, because I can't choose who has kids, or how many kids they have, or that they eat a diet which doesn't detract from their learning experience, or make sure the kids actually study.. the list goes on. Given that so much is out of my control, no, there isn't a direct benefit for me to pay for someone else's kids. You're also assuming that most parents wouldn't be able to afford to, which is likely not the case (since most people are parents, the amount of single people NOT paying would be small, and thus the extra cost to parents small as well). You never argue any facts, just this abstract notion (which you can't fully back up) that I benefit by paying for other kids eduction.
Mostly in places where they have trouble enforcing mandatory education. (In these places, the average parent tends to suck even worse than the public schools, so don't blame the school system.) It just goes to prove the point.
Nope, inner citys have poor schools which a majority of students enrolled go to. But you're basically arguing that someone who's a bad parent deserves to take money from me to educate their kid, but doesn't have to make suer that their kid is actually getting that education. Very good idea.
Where did I try to claim that? Oh yeah, I didn't.
Sure you did; at least I can only assume its you, given the tone and same pointless repetition of the same "fact". What else would I owe society in your mind that I'm not already paying for, which you expect me to "pay back"? I can only assume you meant my education (since you never specifically said what it was that I owed society).
Did they even try to teach you reading comprehension, or was it just memorizing bible verses and listenting to rants about how much public schools suck?
Apparently they never taught you logic or debate, because you haven't been doing a very good job of it. FWIW, there was only one period devoted to religion, and the rest of the days periods were math, English, science, etc without any mention of god. Oh, and I never did the bible homework they assigned either. Finally, its listening not listenting. Might want to make sure your writing skills are perfect before you bash others.
I realize that you're bored because you're on summer break now; maybe your parents should have sent you to camp for a few weeks.
Ahh, but he was refering to his mother 'beating the crap' out of him from his perspective as a child.
You're assuming that's what he meant. Given that he is an adult now, he could have chosen another phrase to more accurately convey what he means. He still says 'beating the crap out of him', which leads me to believe he, to this day, believes he got the crap beat out of him.
how many of you people know a foreign language? esp. you americans.
This is the only part I'm going to call you out on. Where exactly is it in America that you'll have problems NOT knowing anything but English? We are an English country, which another English country to our north. I'm sure knowing Spanish near Mexico may be helpful, but how many of us travel into Mexico that often?
There just isn't any reason to know another language here; its not like you cross out of PA and into NY and they are speaking another language. Remember, most states here are as big as countries in Europe. Do the majority of Russians know more than Russian? I'd like to know, as I would think not.
Indeed I think basic healthcare and dentistry should be included as well. To do otherwise is to waste human capital, the most unthinkable crime.
The problem is that no where in there does anyone become encouraged to do for themselves. You do realize that the public healthcare we have now is paying for people that simply WON'T stop eating and start exersicing? That's the problem with viewing healthcare as a right.
I eat nothing but McDs, grow to 400 pounds, and then use the public healthcare system to get an unnessary surgery to lose the weight again. Its happening RIGHT NOW. The only benefit so far is that its insuring a constant stream of work for my wife (who handles the precertification of the surgeries).
And I agree for the most part - except that dosen't cover the freely available end of it. Privatizing schools will simply lead to expensive schools for the rich and less expensive schools with the "undesirables" in them.
Not at all. You still set minimum standards which ALL schools must meet and you still certify teachers. Then you also extend educational loans to those that truely need it. There's no reason parents can't pay and still have the outcome you desire.
here are many countries in Africa where poor kids are put to work (or begging) as soon as they are able, reproduce as soon as they are able, and raise kids to repeat the cycle.
I believe in compsolary education for kids, I'm not advocating we drop that. The ONLY change I'd like to see is a shift in the financial responsibity for education. It should rest on the parents. Also, I have no problems with government education loans being given out. We can have every kid going to school and still keep the burden of those costs on the parents with kids.
Rich people can segregate themselves from an uneducated or badly educated proletariat, but that isn't considered desirable in a classless society.
Excuse me? We don't have a classless society right now and the rich ARE segragated. They live in gated communities or on huge plots of land near other rich people.
While the US and Western Europe have room for improvement, much of our success comes from having more literate, better educated lower classes, relatively speaking, of course.
It seems to me that the lower classes are barely able to speak English.. thanks to the way we're doing public education.
1) When you are retired... those kids will have jobs and be paying the taxes for roads, hospitals, etc. that you will be using.
Being retired won't make my untaxable. I'll still be paying for hospitals, roads and other things, as I'll STILL have an income tax (on SS, which ironically was already taxed when I put in) and I'll be paying sales tax, and gasoline tax, property tax, etc. So even when I'm retired, I'll still be paying for those kinds of things.
2) Alternatively, those kids will not beat the hell out of you and rob you (maybe even kill you) because they got an education and bought in to the system themselves. Denied an education, they become thugs and either a) You pay higher taxes to incarcerate them or b) they take your stuff and/or kill you.
That theory doesn't seem to be working. First, I never said to deny a kid an education. I said their parents should pay for it on their own. Their parents will have less disposable income, yes, but they chose to have kids, did they not? Secondly, the poor people you're worried about aren't getting an education right now. So its more or less money wasted. Maybe if parents were forced to pay for thier kids education seperately (and be compelled to put their kid through school) the parents would be more keen on getting the kid to study, or perhaps move them to a better school.
It is in our own interest for the next generation to be well behaved socialized tax paying members of society.
Look around, and tell me that the current system is doing that right now. I think its also in our best interest to eliminate freeloads from the system as well and to make people more accountable for themselves and their families.
If you went to a private school, then your parents had enough money to pony up so that people who couldn't afford private school could have you know, textbooks and stuff.
People who cannot afford children should not be having them, don't you think?
If you were home schooled, or went to religious school, think of it as a tax assessed against your right to brainwash your own kid (apologies to secular homeschoolers).
FWIW, I did go to a catholic school. Fortunatly, I survived the brainwashing (I no longer believe in those myths).
I know it's popular to think, "I don't use it so I don't care" here, but some of us, my own private schooled ass included, think that there is a little more to the world than screwing poor kids out of an education, and screwing poor old people out of a little pocket change a month.
You should look at the laws than. Before a terminally ill person can get public health insurance, they MUST sell pretty much every worldly thing they've worked for, including their house (which I find odd, because now they have the extra bill of paying rent).
FWIW, it doesn't seem like public education is helping poor kids at all. So besides paying for something which I shouldn't have to, the money taken from me is being wasted. If you think the current system is working, you're not looking at the numbers.
You didn't choose to have a fire service, police service, army, road system or whatever else the state forces you to pay for, yet with all these things, including education, you benefit. Yes, you end up paying for things you might not choose to want - that's true of taxation and the concept of a state in general.
Having fire, police, army and roads around DO benefit me directly though. Your argument is that since we are already taxing for things you may or may not approve of, lets just throw in more? No, lets reduce those things. The government is doing way too much as it is, I'm most certainly in favor of cutting all but the most vital of 'shared services.'
And people who have private health insurance still pay national insurance, and so on.
So who ends up with the most benefit? That's right, those who aren't paying anything into the system at all. For example, my wife does insurance pre-certification; want to guess how many people on Medicad come in for a gastric bypass? The result here is that some fat fuck who we have to pay for (via taxes) can't stop eating, now we have to pay for a surgery because that fat fuck is too lazy to diet and exercise. And then we pay again, as the surgey itself has many complications, even if the patient does what they are supposed to afterwards, and we pay more again because usually they don't, and blow the stomach staples or bands. I'm all in favor of ditching public health insurance.
So both of your arguments apply to taxation in general.
I agree; there should be a bare minimal of services which everyone MUST pay into.
Yes, there's an argument for saying you should only have to pay for things you both (a) benefit from and (b) chose to have, but that basically means you're doing away with the state altogether.
I disagree. We don't have to do away with the state all together; we just have to remove much of the extra crap, and have people become more responsible for things which are really their responsibilty, and stop supporting freeloaders.
Yes but in your system, they'd have to have paid far more for your education.
Raising a child is expensive. Sorry, thats how it is. We are basically allowing people who cannot (or just barely can) support a child to have one, than taking money from those that can afford it or those who choose not to have kids at all. I don't think that's fair.
By the way, are you happy to receive no pension or any other help from the state when you retire, whilst people who have children do receive them? After all, it will be thanks to their children and the education they paid for that there'll be a workforce paying tax, and I don't see why you should benefit from that, when you wanted no part in that.
Pensions are done through the company you for which you work. I don't have that as an option. As it is, there probably WON'T be any money left for SS by the time I retire, as the ponzi scheme is about to collapse. I'm planning my retirement now (still 40 some years away) and I'm not planning on there being any SS when that happens. Justifying one unfair money grab by making people dependant on another doesn't justify either.
(I don't have children, nor do I intend to have them, by the way - but I see the benefits both that people have children, and that they are educated.)
I see the benefits to it as well, but it should be the parents responsibility to provide that education.
I never said no one pays for them. Obviously, that burden would fall on the parents.