Free Educations for All

[inALIENable]

Shouldnt it though.....................Pre-school, education, food, medical care, housing, employment, and retirement too........these are basic human rights !!!

If your list of so-called rights require me or anyone else to get up off our asses and do something that we may not want to do for another (especially those we may not like and disagree with), then it is NOT a right, but an enslavement.

Your so-called rights should not infringe upon another persons rights, especially to be free.

Folks, don't let these beggars con you all, nothing is or can be free without costing someone else their freedom.

The robbing hoodlum mentality is a parasitic disease that if left unchecked will lead to doom.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, the federal govt. got in the business of giving out anyone who wants one a loan to go to college. That program is now in the process of bursting the bubble created by such a lousy program. It's also the reason costs to go to college have run through the roof over the last 15-20 years.

I really do not see how much more "free" you want to make it. But I'll tell you, it isn't going to work the way you like. Public schools are failing because the system is uncompetitive, to put it real simply. The puvblic schools in my city are atrocious. Making charter and private schools much more appealing. Another example of how social programs fail miserably. All of them.

 

[Dragon]

Folks, don't let these beggars con you all, nothing is or can be free without costing someone else their freedom.

Whose freedom to do what?

I think we can take it a step further: freedom is a zero sum game. Any freedoms guaranteed to anyone come at the expense of someone else's freedom to interfere with it. That's true even at the most basic level. My freedom not to be a slave, comes at the expense of your freedom to own slaves; both freedoms cannot exist simultaneously and one must be sacrificed. We have chosen to guarantee the right not to be a slave, and in so doing have denied people the freedom to own slaves.

Same comes with workers' rights versus employers' privilege, or even the right of women to vote versus men's privilege of controlling electoral results.

In this case, we are discussing the freedom of college students to emerge from four years of college without a crushing burden of debt, or in many cases to attend college at all and so have a chance at a decent income in life, set against the freedom of taxpayers to enjoy a few dollars each of spending money that they would otherwise have in their pockets. As with all such decisions, we need to decide which of these is more appropriate, and therefore which must be sacrificed.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

That was when a high school diploma meant something. Due to social promotion, a high school diploma is like a 6th grade diploma.

Exactly. And that's why we should extend public education through a bachelor's degree. We can no longer treat that as a privilege, when it has become a necessity of a good job.

And make it even more worthless.............................

 

[Dragon]

Public schools are failing because the system is uncompetitive, to put it real simply.

But the system ISN'T uncompetitive. Or do you think there's no such thing as a private school at the K-12 level?

The puvblic schools in my city are atrocious.

Yeah, well, there are two reasons for that, neither of them arising from the "public" nature of the schools. One, poor families on the average have less respect for education (that's part of the reason why they're poor). And two, a lot of states fund each school system from local taxes, which means that poor areas have an inadequate funding base for their schools.

The second cause could be cured by making the schools MORE socialistic than they are. The first -- that's another problem and requires a different solution, to be discussed in another thread.

 

[SniperFire]

Like so many of these threads, the premise of the 'education is a right' perspective seems to be that we all have a 'right' to have our basic needs provided for.

Hold on, no. With respect to education, that's not the premise. The premise is that people have a right to an opportunity at success. As an American tradition, this is nothing new.

BS. There is no 'right' to education any more than there is a 'right' to force somebody to feed and clothe you. Rights are not the same as values and/or moral obligations.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

One, poor families on the average have less respect for education (that's part of the reason why they're poor).

So lets give the ungrateful baffoons more of it? You just got through arguing for a way to climb out of poverty by making education free and then say this? You really are twisted up. They dont respect the education provided by the community, so lets someon how rob others to make it more "free" for those who dont respect it.

No thanks.

And two, a lot of states fund each school system from local taxes, which means that poor areas have an inadequate funding base for their schools.

Soooo, in other words, those of us who pay, should pay more to help fund the areas where revenue from taxation is low because people don't pay. This is NYC, I pay ungodly taxes to both the state and city every year and we're among the top incomes in the country by average and yet with all this taxation, they can't seem to manage the money. Failed social programs fail.

The public schools are not competitive. Right down to the teachers unions.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Like so many of these threads, the premise of the 'education is a right' perspective seems to be that we all have a 'right' to have our basic needs provided for.

Hold on, no. With respect to education, that's not the premise. The premise is that people have a right to an opportunity at success. As an American tradition, this is nothing new.

BS. There is no 'right' to education any more than there is a 'right' to force somebody to feed and clothe you. Rights are not the same as values and/or moral obligations.

He didn't say "right to education". You can read his post and see that. Why did you not address what he wrote?

All people have a right to opportunities for success. One of the best opportunities for success is a good education. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if we provide a good education to someone they have a better chance of being successful.

 

[dblack]

Like so many of these threads, the premise of the 'education is a right' perspective seems to be that we all have a 'right' to have our basic needs provided for.

Hold on, no. With respect to education, that's not the premise. The premise is that people have a right to an opportunity at success. As an American tradition, this is nothing new. It underlies public education generally, and also things like homesteading.

"Opportunity" is an overloaded term (much like "access"). The original conception of equal opportunity meant there were no legal structures limiting your potential based on social class or state privilege. So, while the tradition of equal opportunity is not new, it's meaning has changed as people have pushed the words to mean something different. "Opportunity" is now often interpreted as something much closer to a 'right to basic needs', assuming that if one doesn't have the tools necessary to exercise a freedom, they don't have the freedom.

Why do we (traditionally) subsidize education below the college level? Because (in part) it's believed that basic skills like literacy are a prerequisite for good citizenship, and (in part) because, in an economy where most people have jobs instead of their own farms or businesses, an education is a prerequisite for having an opportunity to succeed.

Today, a high-school diploma does not provide a good job anymore. A college degree is a must. Expanding public education to include four years of college is only keeping true to our traditions in the face of changed economic reality, not abandoning them, nor introducing anything fundamentally new.

I've never really agreed with Jefferson's views regarding public education. They seem, to me, to directly contradict his reasoning regarding religious freedom. He seemed to recognize that forming a state religion - even if the freedom to believe otherwise was preserved - was a bad idea. The same dangers are inherent in state education. In any case, the justification for public education is pretty much all driven by the needs of the state - not the rights of citizens.

 

[SniperFire]

In this case, we are discussing the freedom of college students to emerge from four years of college without a crushing burden of debt, or in many cases to attend college at all and so have a chance at a decent income in life, set against the freedom of taxpayers to enjoy a few dollars each of spending money that they would otherwise have in their pockets.

Complete nonsense. You have no 'right' to force somebody else to fund your education.

 

[Vidi]

The Liberal mindset on full display.


If you don't want to provide them with everything for free, you must be a hater!

Lol the US was one of the first countries to provide "free" k-12 education. It helped to build a better workforce and gave America a competitive edge. An employer needs people who can read, write, add, problem solve, etc.

Now America is trying to compete with countries that provide "free" higher education.

It's not a matter of altruism, but a matter of international competition. No different than investing in a strong military. Without a strong, educated workforce, we will be unarmed and therefore vulnerable.

Also, nothing is free in this world. Nothing.

 

[SniperFire]

He didn't say "right to education". You can read his post and see that. Why did you not address what he wrote?

Sure he did. He said the right to education was a derivative of the 'right' to have an opportunity at success.

 

[DontBeStupid]

One, poor families on the average have less respect for education (that's part of the reason why they're poor).

So lets give the ungrateful baffoons more of it? You just got through arguing for a way to climb out of poverty by making education free and then say this? You really are twisted up. They dont respect the education provided by the community, so lets someon how rob others to make it more "free" for those who dont respect it.

No thanks.

And two, a lot of states fund each school system from local taxes, which means that poor areas have an inadequate funding base for their schools.

Soooo, in other words, those of us who pay, should pay more to help fund the areas where revenue from taxation is low because people don't pay. This is NYC, I pay ungodly taxes to both the state and city every year and we're among the top incomes in the country by average and yet with all this taxation, they can't seem to manage the money. Failed social programs fail.

The public schools are not competitive. Right down to the teachers unions.

You endlessly complain about how your money is going to "lazy poor people", yet, when presented with a way to break that trend, you whine and complain more. I think it's clear you don't care about fixing anything. You just want to be a baby.

 

[DontBeStupid]

He didn't say "right to education". You can read his post and see that. Why did you not address what he wrote?

Sure he did. He said the right to education was a derivative of the 'right' to have an opportunity at success.

No. He didn't. Why would you lie about something when we can all clearly see what he wrote?

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually, if we expect people to get an education to prepare our work force, and if we make obtaining a good income contingent on having a good education, then education should be free. There's no getting around that.

In NO way, as an adult responsible for your own well being/advancement/etc, should you be OWED any 'free' education...

"There is no getting around that"

Idiot

 

[DontBeStupid]

Actually, if we expect people to get an education to prepare our work force, and if we make obtaining a good income contingent on having a good education, then education should be free. There's no getting around that.

In NO way, as an adult responsible for your own well being/advancement/etc, should you be OWED any 'free' education...

"There is no getting around that"

Idiot

Could it be a benefit for living in the, supposed, greatest country on the planet?

 

[Dragon]

"Opportunity" is an overloaded term (much like "access"). The original conception of equal opportunity meant there were no legal structures limiting your potential based on social class or state privilege. So, while the tradition of equal opportunity is not new, it's meaning has changed as people have pushed the words to mean something different.

You do realize that public education in this country goes back to BEFORE the Revolutionary War, I trust? And that the idea of providing actual MEANS of doing well -- not just removing legal barriers -- also dates back that far, insofar as colonial governments, state governments, and the federal government have provided cheap or free land to anyone who would work it on a frequent basis.

I understand what you're saying, but it has no basis in history, even if it does in libertarian theory.

I've never really agreed with Jefferson's views regarding public education.

Well, you're honest, anyway. I'm afraid I'm more of a pragmatist than you are, and less an ideological purist. Either we provide education at public expense for everyone, or it becomes a privilege of the children of the rich. Those, pragmatically speaking, are our choices. I find the second option completely unacceptable.

 

[SniperFire]

He didn't say "right to education". You can read his post and see that. Why did you not address what he wrote?

Sure he did. He said the right to education was a derivative of the 'right' to have an opportunity at success.

No. He didn't. Why would you lie about something when we can all clearly see what he wrote?

He was arguing (poorly) that the 'right' to education is founded in the the American notion that everyone has a 'right' to have an opportunity at success.

Leftists always freely abuse the definition of 'rights' when they are looking for a handout.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

One, poor families on the average have less respect for education (that's part of the reason why they're poor).

So lets give the ungrateful baffoons more of it? You just got through arguing for a way to climb out of poverty by making education free and then say this? You really are twisted up. They dont respect the education provided by the community, so lets someon how rob others to make it more "free" for those who dont respect it.

No thanks.

And two, a lot of states fund each school system from local taxes, which means that poor areas have an inadequate funding base for their schools.

Soooo, in other words, those of us who pay, should pay more to help fund the areas where revenue from taxation is low because people don't pay. This is NYC, I pay ungodly taxes to both the state and city every year and we're among the top incomes in the country by average and yet with all this taxation, they can't seem to manage the money. Failed social programs fail.

The public schools are not competitive. Right down to the teachers unions.

You endlessly complain about how your money is going to "lazy poor people", yet, when presented with a way to break that trend, you whine and complain more. I think it's clear you don't care about fixing anything. You just want to be a baby.

There was no idea presented to break that trend. The offering is for more of the same failure. Piling failure on failure is not going to generate success. I want to fix it. Not break it even more.

You understand nothing.

 

[Dragon]

So lets give the ungrateful baffoons more of it?

ON AVERAGE, I said. Not ALL poor families.

Either education is provided at public expense, or it is a privilege of the children of the wealthy. It's quite simple, really. Do you think that, not merely success, but a CHANCE at success, should be reserved for the children of the well-off?

That's the outcome you're arguing for, whether you would approve or not.

By the way, some public schools -- maybe even most of them -- are excellent. The real failures are a minority.