The cute thing about analogies is that we can find a different analogy that is just as good in some limited domain, but whose extension gives the opposite view. (Moral: all analogies are to be treated with caution, potentially providing useful ways of thinking about the actual problem, but not a cast-iron case.)
For example, let's return to the restaurant analogy. Suppose the government decides to use part of our (increased) taxes to subsidize a particular chain of restaurants, no doubt for the best possible motives, efficiently providing all Americans with a balanced, nutrition-rich diet, plenty of vitamins, minerals, roughage, anti-oxidants. omega-3 acids, etc., etc. (Incidentally, an article I recently read - in Scientific American, I think, I can check if desired - presented the case that governmental agriculture subsidies have made it cheaper to eat unhealthfully, and this needs to be changed, so as I write this it's sounding more and more plausible to me that a concerned Uncle Sam might start legislating restaurants and food in general - for our own good!) Ok, so in the future, everyone can eat in the approved "public restaurants", but of course we'll be paying for it out our increased taxes, so it is (or should be) a wash for the average citizen. More taxes, less food expenses, fine. In fact, an efficient system might even save us money! - perhaps the increase in taxes might be less than what we used to spend on food. Oh, and don't forget the _huge_ savings because no-one actually needs to buy food for the home anymore, or kitchen equipment, refrigerators, freezers, etc. Most important, our wise government would be guaranteeing that the precise nutritional needs of each person are met. Best would be to have a height and weight measurement system automatically "size" the clients as they (inevitably) wait in line for their food, so the amount of food delivered to the various shaped depressions in the stainless steel tray could be adjusted to the correct caloric content for that individual. What a concept! Within a short time American obesity would be a thing of the past - since the restaurant/cafeteria wouldn't give fat people more food than they actually need, so automatic weight reduction would ensue, and health-care costs nation-wide would plummet while average lifespan would increase. Say, this is sounding better and better!
Of course, there would be some glitches to work out. A friend of mine has celiac disease and must avoid wheat gluten products, so the "one size fits all" doesn't work so well for him. A few lawsuits would fix little things like that. Perhaps eventually we'd need retinal scan ID, linked to medical records in a central database, so that appropriate food could be supplied to each client. (We also need a catchy name for the government-approved cafeteria/restaurant chain. What about "US Eats"?
But back to the purpose of this analogy: what about those (who for no medical reason) don't like the food served at the neighborhood USEatery? Suppose there still are private restaurants and grocery stores available, permitting the possibility of eating elsewhere. Might vouchers or tax rebates/exclusions be appropriate for those who don't use the USEateries?
But, no! Obviously everyone in the country would be benefited by the existence of the USEateries, even if they don't eat there themselves.
Wouldn't the entire population benefit from the free feeding of its population? What percentage of lawyers, doctors, nurses, engineers, business managers, office workers, network managers, physical therapists, home health care assistants... need to eat? Isn't the entire population benefited because these people don't starve? Even those who choose to eat elsewhere should gladly pay the increased taxes to feed those who eat at USEateries.
This is _clearly_ _exactly_ the same as the way everyone benefits from public education and all the other analogies mentioned.
Yes. You. Benefit. Yes, you should pay the additional taxes. You should lobby for USEatery legislation, whether or not you would eat there, whether or not you have specific medical requirements or taste preferences. The EMT who drives to your house eats there, 80% of the population eats there, the nation benefits, So You Benefit.
Gee, this was fun!
Now I'm going back to _Physics_. Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'll be enjoying teaching my summer General Physics class,
KC
P.S. I hope it's completely obvious to anyone reading this far that this whole message was tongue-in-cheek. Just another fun proof-by-analogy, to fit in nicely with some of the recent messages in this thread.
P.P.S. Incidentally, there has been too much ad hominem argument in this thread. (Yes, just about _any_ is too much, so my .) People who favor vouchers also say this or that or the other. Maybe they're flat-earthers, holocaust-deniers, or Yazdanists (I googled to find an extinct religion, to not step on any toes - hopefully!) And speaking of ad hominem arguments, I will freely admit that I personally am biased against people who are rude and use needlessly crude language in their arguments. By rights I should only look at the validity of the argument, but I find that on the average I am less likely to agree with a purportedly logical argument as soon as profanity is added. Something for me to work on, I know.
Doesn't the entire population benefit from the free education of its population? What percentage of.lawers, doctors, nurses, engineers, business managers, office workers, network managers, physical therapists, home health care assistants... Were educated in the public school system?
I do think everyone benefits from public education in exactly the same way they benefit from the police department, roads and highways.
You might not drive the road or go.to the school, but it is there, free, and even though you don't use it, the emt that drives to your or your neighbors house more than likely did (what was it, 80% of population went to public schools).
Yes. You benefit. Yes, you pay taxes.
If you want vouchers for school and police and roads, then you should think about what services you use daily (and I will.even stoop to mention the pizza delivery buy and the Target checkout folks) and prepare to avoid their use.
Good luck.
Oh, do we include all the roads built by kids that went to public high schools? I think we should. That would likely eliminate the interstate highway system from your travel.plans.
Not with anger, but with honesty.
I disagree with vouchers for these.reasons and more.
Probably time to leave it alone (which is easy to say, and harder.to do).
Have a good one.
Paul.
Paul Lulai
St Anthony Village Senior High
----- Reply message -----
From: "Ken Caviness" <caviness@southern.edu<mailto:caviness@southern.edu>>
Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 8:43 pm
Subject: [Phys-L] Private schools
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org<mailto:Phys-L@Phys-L.org>" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org<mailto:Phys-L@Phys-L.org>>
In my opinion these analogies are interesting, but not that good a fit. Even pedestrians benefit from the existence of roads that facilitate commerce, the movement of food, etc. Everyone in the country benefits from the existence of the police force and the attendant decrease in crime.
So: Inventive, yes. Thought-provoking, yes. But no, these cases are not "just like".
If I walk to work do I still have to pay taxes for roads?
If I live in a gated community with its own security, do I still have to pay taxes for police?
Should they all get vouchers? I hope not.
Just like how the people in the above situations still benefit from taxes paid for police & the dept of transportation, so do they benefit from public education. It may not be through direct interaction, but the benefit is there.