A Right to Education?

[marksiwel]

Do children have the "Right" to an education?

[Zee]

Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.
John Adams (1735-1836)

[Kythas]

Universal education is beneficial to society as a whole, and a good education is beneficial to a person as an individual, and for these reasons publicly funded education should be provided. Even people with no children who pay, through taxes, for the education of all children benefit from this.

That said, it's not a right.

Having government provide police and fire services is also something that benefits society as a whole, but also is not a right.

I would argue that government services such as police, fire, and education are means for the government to provide the societal framework for us to pursue the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as these services prevent societal slide into anarchy.

And before you ask, no, being provided health care services is not a right, though I may argue that ACCESS to health care is. A right is something which, when being exercised, requires nothing of anyone else. As soon as what you want requires another person to provide their time and talents to provide it to you, it ceases to be a right and becomes a service.

[Purplehood]

I don't consider it a right, but I do consider it a duty of any "advanced" society. Otherwise you cannot maintain anything other than a third-world anarchy/dictatorship.

[Zee]

I don't consider it a right, but I do consider it a duty of any "advanced" society. Otherwise you cannot maintain anything other than a third-world anarchy/dictatorship.

That indeed is the threshold for an advanced society.

[mr.72]

Of course it is a right. The freedom to acquire an education is a civil right.

Of course, I assume by the framing of the question, what you really mean to ask is not whether "education" is a "right", but whether "the cost of education" is an "entitlement" for which all taxpayers shall rightfully be burdened through the force of law and threat of imprisonment.

If indeed this is the question you intended to ask, regardless of the misleading terminology of "a right to education", then the answer is that historically, the cost of education has been an entitlement provided by the taxpayer in America and this policy has not been challenged by voters en masse.

And FWIW, the 10th Amendment provides a means by which the people, or the states, may choose to burden themselves with the social welfare of providing a free education. This same 10th Amendment also prohibits the Federal government from enforcing this entitlement, and all other entitlements not enumerated in the Constitution, including health health insurance and about 95% of what the Federal Government does at present.

[marksiwel]

[dicion]

I agree with purplehood and mr 72

An Education is a right, in that, you have the freedom to pursue and acquire it if you so desire, and this freedom should not be infringed.

It is not a entitlement, however. Noone is REQUIRED to provide you with one.

However, as purplehood said, it is a measure of an advanced society that everyone gets at least a certain level of education.

[Keith B]

Of course it is a right. The freedom to acquire an education is a civil right.

Of course, I assume by the framing of the question, what you really mean to ask is not whether "education" is a "right", but whether "the cost of education" is an "entitlement" for which all taxpayers shall rightfully be burdened through the force of law and threat of imprisonment.

If indeed this is the question you intended to ask, regardless of the misleading terminology of "a right to education", then the answer is that historically, the cost of education has been an entitlement provided by the taxpayer in America and this policy has not been challenged by voters en masse.

And FWIW, the 10th Amendment provides a means by which the people, or the states, may choose to burden themselves with the social welfare of providing a free education. This same 10th Amendment also prohibits the Federal government from enforcing this entitlement, and all other entitlements not enumerated in the Constitution, including health health insurance and about 95% of what the Federal Government does at present.

And the whole problem with many young people and the welfare types is an 'entitlement mentality'. The entitlement thing is a real issue as I feel you are not entitled to anything, you must earn what you want. That said, you are not entitled to an education, you must work hard and study to earn a good one. That is what is wrong with the education system today and flows into many other aspects of life.

However, I have been trying to convince 'she who must be obeyed' that I am entitled to a new EMP, but she hasn't figured I have earned it yet. I saw a statement yesterday that said 'Every successful marriage contains one coward'. Think that sums it up, and you can guess which one I am.

[The Annoyed Man]

Of course it is a right. The freedom to acquire an education is a civil right.

Of course, I assume by the framing of the question, what you really mean to ask is not whether "education" is a "right", but whether "the cost of education" is an "entitlement" for which all taxpayers shall rightfully be burdened through the force of law and threat of imprisonment.

If indeed this is the question you intended to ask, regardless of the misleading terminology of "a right to education", then the answer is that historically, the cost of education has been an entitlement provided by the taxpayer in America and this policy has not been challenged by voters en masse.

And FWIW, the 10th Amendment provides a means by which the people, or the states, may choose to burden themselves with the social welfare of providing a free education. This same 10th Amendment also prohibits the Federal government from enforcing this entitlement, and all other entitlements not enumerated in the Constitution, including health health insurance and about 95% of what the Federal Government does at present.

Geeze... maybe I'm becoming a closet libertarian, because I could not agree more.

[android]

And FWIW, the 10th Amendment provides a means by which the people, or the states, may choose to burden themselves with the social welfare of providing a free education. This same 10th Amendment also prohibits the Federal government from enforcing this entitlement, and all other entitlements not enumerated in the Constitution, including health health insurance and about 95% of what the Federal Government does at present.

Geeze... maybe I'm becoming a closet libertarian, because I could not agree more.

Well, that's why I'm a hybrid libertarian. I think the federal govt should be minimal and limited as originally designed. But I believe states should do what they want (within the confines of the Constitution and BOR) without federal coercion. Then, if you don't like what the state govt is doing, you can vote with your moving truck.

[Purplehood]

That morbid mentality of "entitlement" just drives me up the wall and is really what personifies a LIBERAL in my mind.

Though I am a Liberal in comparison to many posters on this board, I feel absolutely no kinship with anyone that shares this crazy sense of entitlement that many do in America, today. This whole issue could set me off on a completely different topic...

[mr.72]

in modern political parlance, "right" seems to have come to be synonymous with "entitlement".

[Dave01]

I don't consider it a right, but I do consider it a duty of any "advanced" society. Otherwise you cannot maintain anything other than a third-world anarchy/dictatorship.

I read an article yesterday written by someone of the progressive liberal persuasion that suggested "publicly funded higher education" (i.e. college) should exist in this country.

I generally agree with your statement, but I have to wonder where the duty ends? Should the taxpayers be on the hook for students education until they finish their 4 year degree? What about PhD's? I don't think so, but the rather arbitrary definition of "duty" in this context leaves that door open.

Dave

[Purplehood]

I don't consider it a right, but I do consider it a duty of any "advanced" society. Otherwise you cannot maintain anything other than a third-world anarchy/dictatorship.

I read an article yesterday written by someone of the progressive liberal persuasion that suggested "publicly funded higher education" (i.e. college) should exist in this country.

I generally agree with your statement, but I have to wonder where the duty ends? Should the taxpayers be on the hook for students education until they finish their 4 year degree? What about PhD's? I don't think so, but the rather arbitrary definition of "duty" in this context leaves that door open.

Dave

I am quite satisfied that the duty that I speak of is being inadequately addressed by our existing school system. Extending that to higher education is beyond our societies capability as we cannot currently provide a uniform level of education from K-12 as it is.