Is education a right or a privilege?

[DamnYankee]

No way in hell that the average citizen is well enough informed to be a good citizen by 6th grade.

In the first place, you don't know anything about economics and economics is what makes our world go round.

Who the hell are you responding to?

It's editec.. he kinda goes off on his own tangents every now and then.

I've come to expect tangents. It would just be nice to have a little context. LOL

 

[JBeukema]

au contraire - the reason why I am asking this is........

If healthcare is getting nationalized by the Obama administration and that's a right - is education next? FREE college education for ALL American citizens? I'm not talking about going to Yale or Columbia for free... I'm talking about a university or community college's education given to you for free. Many people don't go to college because they can't afford it - if education is free, more people would go to college and get better educated and thus we would have smarter workers who would earn more money and give back higher tax revenue to the government.

So if healthcare is a right and education is a right - is free education next upon Obama's list?

Compare going to the ER after being hit by a car to plastic surgery. One is necessary, the other is not. Compare having an educated and informed populace so that the Republic can function to sending everyone to get PHDs. The first is necessary, the latter is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Education is a universal human right, and that's not an "opinion," it is a fact.

You're an idiot. Please read a dictionary.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Expresses the writers' opinion. Also look up Positive Rights versus Natural Rights

------

S

Wow.... Would you look at what I read in there?

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.


Sorry about the slight deflection here, but that's sure as hell going to be hard to argue against by the Gay Marriage Activists, isn't it?

how so?

In a democratic republic an informed citizenry is absolutely essantial.

Noone else caught that?

I don't get it - what the fuck is the difference if you have a state gov't involved or if you have a federal gov't involved? I don't get this whole states this states that.

Because you're an idiot who needs to learn the purpose of a Republic

 

[hjmick]

Through the levels K through 12, it is something of a right insomuch as it is compulsory. Anything after that, it is a privilege.

 

[Oddball]

Through the levels K through 12, it is something of a right insomuch as it is compulsory. Anything after that, it is a privilege.

Someone -anyone- please 'splain to me this notion of a "compelled right".

 

[JBeukema]

Through the levels K through 12, it is something of a right insomuch as it is compulsory. Anything after that, it is a privilege.

Someone -anyone- please 'splain to me this notion of a "compelled right".

It means hjmick is an idiot

 

[Oddball]

It means hjmick is an idiot

He's not the only one who's claiming the compelled attendance and financing of gubmint schooling is a "right".

Try to stay on topic.

 

[hjmick]

Through the levels K through 12, it is something of a right insomuch as it is compulsory. Anything after that, it is a privilege.

Someone -anyone- please 'splain to me this notion of a "compelled right".

I qualified my comment with the phrase "something of a right." But you are correct, technically, compulsory attendence would nullify the idea that a K-12 education is a right as we understand it. Unlike college, however, K-12 is available to every child.

 

[Oddball]

I qualified my comment with the phrase "something of a right." But you are correct, technically, compulsory attendence would nullify the idea that a K-12 education is a right as we understand it. Unlike college, however, K-12 is available to every child.

Right...Yet the funding of those schools is also by compulsion.

To understand what I'm getting at, consider this scenario:

Hypothetically, say I'm a house painter...Even though I have a strong aptitude and ability for teaching, I still like painting house better and make a better living doing so.

Suddenly, there's a dire shortage of competent and qualified teachers (write your own jokes here).

Does this purported "right" to an education provide a morally viable excuse to force me to go teach school chilluns, when I'd rather paint houses??

 

[hjmick]

Right...Yet the funding of those schools is also by compulsion.

To understand what I'm getting at, consider this scenario:

Hypothetically, say I'm a house painter...Even though I have a strong aptitude and ability for teaching, I still like painting house better and make a better living doing so.

Suddenly, there's a dire shortage of competent and qualified teachers (write your own jokes here).

Does this purported "right" to an education provide a morally viable excuse to force me to go teach school chilluns, when I'd rather paint houses??

I'm going with "no," unless of course we somehow wind up living in some sort of totalitarian society where our every decision is dictated by the government... wait... no, we're still cool.

I get your point though. Luckily, those kinds of decisions are left to us rather than the government. Well, lucky for us, seems like kind of a mixed bag for the kids. But I wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[LOki]

Neither. It's a benefit.

 

[Oddball]

Great distinction.

A public good is not the same as a gubmint-granted benefit.

Probably why gubmint schools are known as welfare for the middle class in some libertarian circles.

 

[xotoxi]

I qualified my comment with the phrase "something of a right." But you are correct, technically, compulsory attendence would nullify the idea that a K-12 education is a right as we understand it. Unlike college, however, K-12 is available to every child.

Right...Yet the funding of those schools is also by compulsion.

To understand what I'm getting at, consider this scenario:

Hypothetically, say I'm a house painter...Even though I have a strong aptitude and ability for teaching, I still like painting house better and make a better living doing so.

Suddenly, there's a dire shortage of competent and qualified teachers (write your own jokes here).

Does this purported "right" to an education provide a morally viable excuse to force me to go teach school chilluns, when I'd rather paint houses??

You bring up another good topic...

IS HAVING A NICELY PAINTED HOUSE A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE?

 

[Oddball]

You bring up another good topic...

IS HAVING A NICELY PAINTED HOUSE A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE?

I was thinking somwhere more along the lines of whether or not self-determination was more of a right than someone else's "right" to your life and mind.

 

[RodISHI]

It means hjmick is an idiot

He's not the only one who's claiming the compelled attendance and financing of gubmint schooling is a "right".

Try to stay on topic.

I suppose I should have said it is both. Looking at it from a perspective of a mother with a child that had dyslexia, I considered his education a right along with students that did not have a disability.

The term compulsory education is also correct as dude says. The states force parents to send their children to public schools. I know I battled such an instance from another biased judge legislating from the bench. His wife, a school teacher for over twenty years, did not believe that there was such a thing as learning disabilities. Her husband the judge, ruled in such a manner as to force my child into a situation where there was no choice but public school. They knew there was no one capable of teaching my son. In forcing that situation, my son and I did prevail in the end as the school was required to provide a trained accredited professional from an outside source. The school was required to pay for a private educator. During the course of these long drawn out years, it was discovered that my son was not the only one. However, it did get the band wagon moving. It was teachers with tenure that were denying my son and others a proper education and treated them with disgust on a daily basis. They had an eleven year old throwing up blood daily in their classes because they made him so nervous. They then had the audacity to claim he was faking it by gagging himself. Had they taken even a scintilla of time, I would have told them my son suffers from a herniated esophagus. He has a birth defect.

Part of the problem in the world today is that people who are organized into groups, unions, special interest groups, etc.. etc.. are always quick to point the finger and deny the truth. Essentially, one voice speaks for all. I believe the reason they do this is because they are not secure enough in their own right to address the issues in a singular fashion. One thing they learned in the end in my son's case was that my son's one voice also spoke for all of the others like him whom these people denied the very existence of.

We are not to join groups and be led blindly by the nose. Just because one speaks out against the majority does not place them in a position of being wrong. College education does not automatically qualify anyone to demand an exorbitant salary, much less to expect it. College does not necessarily qualify a person for a particular job. College does not teach common sense. If all the college people are now facing unemployment, why are the colleges still raising their college tuition and promoting more unemployed graduates? Tell me where is the common sense in this? Again taxes. Taxes, taxes and more taxes. Is that all our colleges can teach is taxes and speculation and spend, spend, spend?


I give you an exemplary example;

College should be available for everyone - not just the elite or the intelligent. Can you imagine if college education, from the first year all the way through receiving a doctorate was free? Our society, overall would be much more intelligent.

Since all of us uneducated idiots don't know what is good for us we should be tax exempt. Why should we be forced to support the elite and intelligent college educated brainchild?

I guess I have answered my own question. Us uneducated do not count anymore than my son did. However don't forget, it was my so called "idiot, retarded" son and his uneducated mother that got the system changed and the attention directed to where the problem really was. College educated elitist and intelligencia did not want to admit they too had learning disabled children. They did not even consider that they themselves could not spell any better than a second grader. I guess they were just too ashamed of their own "idiot retarded" children. Now you tell me our country has not gone to hell in a hand basket.

 

[neurosport]

it's a privilege

fortunately for the power Elite none of us ever received a real education

what we received was INDOCTRINATION

that education is a right is a MYTH endorsed by the power elite which they use to continue to brainwash children

if tomorrow department of education was gone people might start looking for information and then they might FIND IT. the power CAN'T HAVE THAT.

 

[Oddball]

Fuckin'-A!!

Never thought I'd agree with neurosport!!

blind squirrel, meet the acorn!

 

[Annie]

After that, I think that our society should not make college free, but should make it acheivable for anyone who wants to work for it.

What do you mean "work for it?" How does an 18 year old kid who's never had a job in his life "work for something" that's too expensive for their parents to afford and too expensive for them to afford?

College should not only be available for the elite, but for the intelligent.

College should be available for everyone - not just the elite or the intelligent. Can you imagine if college education, from the first year all the way through receiving a doctorate was free? Our society, overall would be much more intelligent.

I've 3 kids that did pay for it themselves. Mostly through scholarships, then they worked. Youngest just graduated with honors. He has $4k in loans after 4 years.

The motivation was there.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Uh and what if a member of the UN doesn't do this? What's the UN going to do? Sorry, but I'm not really concern with what laws the UN puts out and doesn't put out. I'm only concerned with the laws my state and federal government put out.

What the fuck, dave? You are so ignorant about the UN. Why does it hurt you that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually aligned with your position? Why do you let your incomprehensible hatred of the United Nations make you deplore something EVEN YOU agree with? What blind hatreds that you hold. "What laws the UN does or doesn't put out?" What the fuck are you talking about? Have you even gone to college at all? The UDHR isn't a fucking law. It's a declaration. BOTHERED TO READ THE TITLE OF THE GODDAMN THING? I mean, seriously dave, what the fuck do you think, that these people are aliens that just dropped out of the blue sky one day and decided to start writing fancy letters?! FUCK'S SAKES- the US ["your" state] created, runs, and staffs the fucking thing. YOUR STATE is one of the 48 COUNTRIES THAT RATIFIED THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. DO YOU KNOW WHY!?!!??! Because in 1948, 3 years after the Nazis were stopped from pulverizing your entire breed, a lot of people from many countries got together and decided to try to stop it, and one of the results was a universal declaration stating what are the basic rights that people have, [JEWS INCLUDED, MIND YOU]. YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?! Do you understand that the UN can't do jack shit unless they're explicitly authorized by STATES to do so, MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL YOUR OWN GODDAMNED state?!?!?!??! EVEN THE FUCKING HEADQUARTERS are a nice fucking subway ride away from you. Sure, you might have to change to the 6 train from the B or A or C or wherever the fuck it is you live, but for CRYING OUT LOUD at least HALF of everything the US is is a direct extension of AMERICANS and AMERICAN POLICY. Get that shit through your THICK SKULL for once.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, you win, dave. You win. I don't have any US law that says that Education is a right. So I guess that's it! Why are you even fucking bothering?! If that's what you're concerned about YOU'VE GOT YOUR ANSWER, now SUCK IT UP AND FORK OVER $50,000 A YEAR TO SEND THE KIDS TO BUMBLEFUCK COLLEGE OF AMERCA.

It would be nice if the US paid for college education for all students. When the states decided to to use property taxes to fund the education system, only the rich people went to college. Now today college is as big of a requirement as high school was back then.

I would support a federal tax increase so we could all have free, university level education at college. The system is broken right now and people who are not doing well cannot afford college. Pell grants are only effective if the student is declared an independent - which no student under 25 is, even if they're living alone and paying their own bills without a dime from mommy and daddy. So either change Pell grants to give ALL students what it used to give only independent students AND lower the financial qualifcations for what a parent earns in order to qualify AND double if not triple the amount of money a pell grant gives OR make college education absolutely free for everyone.

Er, ok... sure. I mean, as I said before, there is a very wide range of available options. There is a very big variety of models to draw on or reject from pretty much everywhere. Take your pick if you don't like your current system or come up with something new. I'm sure you can find other Americans to agree. Make a movement if you want. Propose things, organize civil society, run for office, whatever. You live in a supposed democracy. I'm sure there's something you can friggin' do.

Well, now that's a good way to derail a thread, but it's absolutely irrelevant. That doesn't say marriage is between a man and a woman, it's saying both men and women of full age can marry; it doesn't say who they can marry. It doesn't say "Men and women of full age [...] have the right to marry ONLY EACH OTHER." Wouldn't be opposed to adding "sexual orientation" after religion either, though, I guess. In any case, that was in 1948: gay rights were probably not high on the agenda back then.

No, but you can interpret that as no one has the right to restrict who can marry who. Every man has the right to marry - so if he wants to marry his male partner, he should be able to. It says nothing about who you can marry.

Uh........................... thanks for repeating the exact same thing I said?

 

[DamnYankee]

Well, now that's a good way to derail a thread, but it's absolutely irrelevant. That doesn't say marriage is between a man and a woman, it's saying both men and women of full age can marry; it doesn't say who they can marry. It doesn't say "Men and women of full age [...] have the right to marry ONLY EACH OTHER." Wouldn't be opposed to adding "sexual orientation" after religion either, though, I guess. In any case, that was in 1948: gay rights were probably not high on the agenda back then.

No, but you can interpret that as no one has the right to restrict who can marry who. Every man has the right to marry - so if he wants to marry his male partner, he should be able to. It says nothing about who you can marry.

I simply thought it would make a damned interesting argument, and would love to hear it and how the Justices would interpret it.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

So, you're going to quote and organization that has the biggest weasel provision in its "universal declaration", which says that all the aforementioned "rights" are null and void if they dare to be used to work as cross-purposes to we who are giving you these "rights"??

Uh-huh.....Suuuuure.

Sorry, "dude", but WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about?

Please, re-read article 30, if that is what you're talking about.