"3 (a)" is hogwash. It starts with a statement I can agree with "Justice demands that every citizen should enjoy, so far as is possible, an equal opportunity to develop his or her talents and his or her other potentialities." Then it jumps to a conclusion that for this to be the government MUST provide these services. "Equal Opportunity" does not equal "government funded".
Thanks, John! The debate logic pushes some extreme conclusions. Making sure that no one can have more of something than someone else sounds a bit absurd. 3 (b) tries to push the envelope by arriving at the elimination of licensing--that’s a very strong stance on how far to take “free markets.”
Ultimately, politics needs healthy, informed debate and consensus-building compromise. Theoretical and philosophical positions of political purity don’t usually get the job done.
"3 (a)" is hogwash. It starts with a statement I can agree with "Justice demands that every citizen should enjoy, so far as is possible, an equal opportunity to develop his or her talents and his or her other potentialities." Then it jumps to a conclusion that for this to be the government MUST provide these services. "Equal Opportunity" does not equal "government funded".
Thanks, John! The debate logic pushes some extreme conclusions. Making sure that no one can have more of something than someone else sounds a bit absurd. 3 (b) tries to push the envelope by arriving at the elimination of licensing--that’s a very strong stance on how far to take “free markets.”
Ultimately, politics needs healthy, informed debate and consensus-building compromise. Theoretical and philosophical positions of political purity don’t usually get the job done.
Yes! We need healthy, informed debate. We don't need censorship!