🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: ca.general
Article #1832

Re: Vouchers = Yes, Prop 174 = No??

#1832
From: Mark S. Peercy
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 15:21
40 lines
3104 bytes
jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
>peercy@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Mark S. Peercy) writes:
>>The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed.  In the 
>>October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
>>
>>  To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know 
>>  is the list of people who are opposed to it.
>
> This is the baldest kind of ad hominum argument.  Prof. Friedman should
> present arguments in favor of the proposition, not try to slam it because
> of the identities of the opponents.  Presumably this means that he finds
> it easier to slam the opponents, because labor unions are unpopular with
> many people, than make arguments in favor.

Probably not, seeing as Milton Friedman was the first to propose this form 
of vouchers back in 1955 -- in an article entitled "The Role of Government 
in Education" in _Economics and the Public Interest_, Robert Solo, ed.  
Chapter 6 of _Capitalism and Freedom_ is a revised version of this article, 
and another discussion can be found in Chapter 6 of _Free to Choose_.

In addition, I quoted only the second paragraph of the October 11 article;
it by no means summarizes his purpose for writing the editorial.  That
purpose can be found in the fourth paragraph:

  However, I am more optimistic about this amendment than I have been about
  any others I have been associated with over the past 30 years.  The 
  reason is that public recognition of the defects of our educational
  system are widespread.  Support also is widespread.  Therefore, I want
  to stress two arguments that have not received enough attention...

The reader should dig up the editorial or read the other references that I 
gave above to understand the arguments that Milton Friedman gives in favor 
of vouchers.

I quoted only the second paragraph because it echoes the concern of the 
original poster that the opposition of Proposition 174 often seems to be 
motivated by something other than the public good.

Mark Peercy
peercy@kaos.stanford.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID: <PEERCY.93Oct17152149@kaos.Stanford.EDU>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!EE.Stanford.EDU!kaos.Stanford.EDU!peercy
References: <29fbbr$lj4@bmsrs.usc.edu> <CEwp60.6zL@ssf-sys.DHL.COM> <PEERCY.93Oct15103256@kaos.Stanford.EDU> <1993Oct16.010121.6336@Synopsys.Com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 106ed4,57878e0852389951
X-Google-Attributes: gid106ed4,public
X-Google-Thread: f824f,20e395c0705a556c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf824f,public
X-Google-Thread: 114ca8,57878e0852389951
X-Google-Attributes: gid114ca8,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-10-17 15:35:18 PST
Newsgroups: ca.general,alt.politics.libertarian,ba.general
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!EE.Stanford.EDU!kaos.Stanford.EDU!peercy
From: peercy@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Mark S. Peercy)
Subject: Re: Vouchers = Yes, Prop 174 = No??
In-Reply-To: jbuck@synopsys.com's message of Sat, 16 Oct 1993 01:01:21 GMT
Message-ID: <PEERCY.93Oct17152149@kaos.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: usenet@EE.Stanford.EDU (Usenet)
Organization: Stanford University
References: <29fbbr$lj4@bmsrs.usc.edu> <CEwp60.6zL@ssf-sys.DHL.COM>
 <PEERCY.93Oct15103256@kaos.Stanford.EDU>
 <1993Oct16.010121.6336@Synopsys.Com>
Distribution: ca
Date: 17 Oct 93 15:21:49
Lines: 40