[Vision2020] Boycotts

[Peter Willard]

--=======51B42768=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-F5F285F; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 11:59 AM 10/21/03 +0000, David Douglas wrote:

>Tom [and Visionaries]:
>
>
>"The discussed method of boycotting is legal.  Refusing to pay your taxes 
>isn't."
>
>That seems to be a pretty risky argument.
>There is legal and then there is right.  One Constitutional Amendment 
>outlawed alcohol. Did that make it right?
>Would it be alright if we considered doing it again? (Not if I was asked).

At least 15,000 people die in alcohol related driving accidents. A small 
price for the freedom to self-medicate? Public safety is the highest law.

>Would you give the same answer if a political majority outlawed compulsory 
>contributions to public schools, AND outlawed boycotts?
>
>The point is not what is LEGAL but the consistency by which we decide some 
>things are ok/legal (boycotting Bucer's or the Coop) and others aren't 
>(boycotting public schools).  If I boycotted Bucer's and/or Coop the way 
>parent's "get" to boycott public schools, I'd pay for my pastry and then 
>leave it there for others and go home and make my own.

That analogy is false for two reasons having nothing to do with education:

1. Public schools keep teenagers off the streets during the day. This alone 
is worth the levy.

2. Public schools (including colleges) keep wages inflated for heads of 
households by keeping young people out of the labor market.

Would it be a good thing if schools educated the youth? Maybe, but that 
might lead to self-empowered cliques trying to change public policy.



Cheers,

Peter

--=======51B42768=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-F5F285F
Content-Disposition: inline


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

--=======51B42768=======--