[11690] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The EFF and Universal Access -- and Andrew Carnegie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Rothman)
Wed Apr 13 22:10:33 1994
In-Reply-To: <199404122010.AA28710@radiomail.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 13:13:28 -0400
To: brodsky@radiomail.net
Cc: ggilder@mcimail.com, interesting-people@eff.org,
farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, opfer@radiomail.net,
media15@radiomail.net, stahlman@radiomail.net, com-priv@psi.com,
barlow@eff.org, jswatz@well.sf.ca.us, kgs@panix.com,
frezza@radiomail.net
From: "David Rothman" <rothman@netcom.com>
Reply-To: rothman@netcom.com
>DATE: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:15:51 PDT >FROM: Ira Brodsky
<brodsky@radiomail.net> >
<Where are there "free" libraries and public schools? How do they
operate without incurring costs? One hot controversy that has erupted
around the country is whether public schools should be funded by local
real estate taxes or state income taxes. I'm curious where you stand on
this. >
Nothing's free, Ira. That's my point. We need to be grownups and pay
taxes for public schools, just as typical parents would have to pay
tuition for their children if the nefarious socialists weren't in the ed
biz. :-) The same basic principle would apply to libraries, more or
less, except that I suspect that budget-strapped families would just
stint on books. As for taxes for public schools themselves, I'd like to
see less reliance on property taxes and more on income taxes. And
libraries? Same approach at the local and/or state level--although I
note that we taxpayers could get much more for our money by way of a
national library online. Wouldn't happen overnight. Rather we'd phase it
in gradually; moreover, we could continue to use local libraries as
support facilities and for civnet-style activities, as well as
story-telling hours, meeting places, and so on.
By the way, a national library needn't be the worst deal for your friend
George Gilder. He's an investor in a readometer company and has
advocating pay-per-read e-books. The same encryption-based technology,
however, could also be used to assure payments to authors and publishers
from a national library fund, even if the material resided on local as
well as national servers. Like George Gilder, I'm a *big* believer in
fair pay for creators. And as I showed in another post, there are ways
to reconcile this with the public's need for affordable knowledge.
>Doesn't the idea of having the government educate the people so that
they can "vote sensibly" raise any red flags? You don't think this
approach would favor incumbents, do you? >
Oh come on, Ira, students need to know about the *process*. Don't you
want your little Libertarians to know how a bill becomes a law, or when
"fiscal year" means? That's true no matter who the incumbent is.
>Were you serious when you depicted a minimalist government as one
concerned only with making sure the trains run on time? On-time train
service has been the pride of socialist and fascist governments, not
free marketers. >
:-)
>The Pentagon provides a service for the common good that can't be
provided by private industry. Schools and libraries are another story.
What is this, a Libertarian convention digitized for Com-Priv? At any
rate my earlier posts explained the relationship between (1) schools and
libraries and (2) democracy. Many Libertarians, I suspect, would
want to enhance their credibility by not being dogmatic.
> >As Chicago's public schools demonstrate, "free" education doesn't
necessarily deliver any value. Why should we expect anything better
from "free" access to digital data pipelines? >
I'm just as grouchy about public schools as you are. But as rotten as
the schools are, they'd be worse if parents had to fend for themselves.
What's more, the existence of public schools doesn't mean that everyone
need attend. I'm all in favor of home schooling and private schooling if
parents favor that instead. Delighted you mentioned an Illinois example.
One of the boosters of a national digital library is from Illionois,
describes herself as a "tax-hater," and is a moderator of a home school
section on America Online. Actually she is consistent. Just *think* how
many more resources would be available to home schoolers--how much more
she'd get for her taxes with a national library online.
>How would you propose to avoid the failures of public education on the
NII? In Chicago, 8 year old kids get blown away by gun-toting
classmates. Does this augur well for the NII? >
So all public schools are full of young murderers, and therefore we
should forget about any new approaches for these schools--including one
that could help private and home schools at the same time?
Moreover, I noted several posts ago that technology itself was not a
panacea.
>Tell me why I should expect Chicago schools to accomplish with $2000
workstations what they have failed to achieve with books? >
Hey, I'm not thrilled, either, about big bucks for deluxe school
machines even if at times they have their place. I want to see a focused
procurement program drive down the cost of small, book-friendly
computers with sharp screens and easy interfaces. Ties in with my
national library plan. The wider the selection of books matching a
child's interest, the more likely he or she will enjoy reading. And the
more computers in the hands of more children, the better. Such a
strategy would promote literacy far, far more successfully than $2,000
workstations with glitzy graphics. The same computers could be great for
networking. I'd sure George Gilder would be the first to say how rotten
an HDTV could be for networking and other "real" computing.
What's more, the same small computers could be used to help control TV
sets via RF links, reply to home shopping ads, fill out e-forms.
Multiple apps and cost-justification! That's what computers should be
all about, but *so far*, at least publicly, Washington seems brain-dead
and is thinking about just more of the usual computers for schools. They
feds still don't grasp that with the right procurement program for
schools and libraries, we could slash the cost of book- and
forms-optimized machines for *everyone*. The key is to create the
market, not just via procurement but through the existence of the
national library. Some major hardware vendors have been open-minded.
They've unofficially approach *me* for the details. Let's expand the
hardware and information markets, not cannibalize the latter by relying
more heavily than need be on regulation and telcom taxes.
>I don't know who is being denied access to information networks today.
And I'm not sure that knowing what you want and paying for it is unfair.
>
Heck, many Americans don't even have cable TV. And many fewer have
computers with modems--just a small minority. And in schools, the
student-computer ratio is 16-to-1; and many of the machines are
antiques. Certainly, book-optimized portables don't exactly abound.
What's more, the most comprehensive information services can charge big
bucks if school kids and others research their material too diligently.
I call it The Curiosity Tax.
>You seem concerned that we will create a society of information 'have
nots'. (Couldn't they just pay attention in "free" school, or go to the
"free" library?) Tell me, David, what do you plan to do when 'bad'
information finds its way onto the Infobahn? >
Hey, isn't this a little contradictory? On one hand, you're worried
about kids getting the party line in public school, and on the other
you're skeptical of plans to increase the range of information
available. Wouldn't it be nice if eighth-graders could not only dial up
standard civics texts but also Libertarian tracts, even in pinko places
like Berkeley? Moreover, rather than seeing the present Internet
replaced, I want to see it strengthened--as the perfect petri dish for
good ideas that the Establishment might at first shrug off as just "bad"
information.
As mentioned in a post to Bill Frezza, I need to attend to the
socialistic demands of the IRS and work on my taxes--not to mention my
Free Enterprise activities as a small business type. So no further
replies guaranteed right now, especially since you guys all seem to be
saying the same thing again and again. Abolish public schools. Abolish
public libraries. And (if Bill Frezza's last post is to be taken at face
value) even abolish our public health departments since government is to
protect us only from "force" or "fraud"--never mind TB or AIDS. At least
John Perry Barlow is all too familiar now with the worldview behind your
criticism of EFF. Many thanks for writing, Ira, and if you're single and
Bill's philosophy prevails, don't forget to wear that condom. :-)
-David Rothman
**************************************************************************
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
rothman@netcom.com the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
I *encourage* online reproduction of my public postings.
Permission hereby granted--implicit, explicit, whatever. Down
with unnecessary restrictions on the flow of knowledge!
**************************************************************************
