Originally posted by normbenign People don't often value what they view as "free". Voting is just one example. I failed to vote in yesterday's primary simply because I didn't see where my vote would have made a difference.
It turned out that my appraisal was correct.
I thought about crossing over to vote for Bernie, but he won anyway.
You can repeat this mantra as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true. In Finland, where people are paid to go to college, education is generally valued much more highly than in the US.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's really irrelevant whether you call it a "right" or not, the question is whether it is a good idea to purchase said service collectively.
It is far from irrelevant.
As things are now, the state is obligated to babysit every child of school age no matter how disruptive or how uninterested that child is in learning. That not only wastes taxpayer money, but also diminishes the effectiveness of education for other students who might actually have cared about learning.
The government does many things collectively without creating new "rights". For example, it makes a lot of sense for garbage collection to be done collectively and most municipalities do so. But it has not been elevated to a "right" and does not necessarily cover all rural residences.
Originally posted by no1marauder Free college, like free public grade and high schools, would be a good idea in the present reality where the gap between earnings of those who go to college and those who don't is very large and growing.
I agree that neither is a "right", however, in the traditional Lockean Natural Rights philosophy that the United States was/is based on.
And not long after, graduate school will need to become a "right" for the same reason.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra You can repeat this mantra as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true. In Finland, where people are paid to go to college, education is generally valued much more highly than in the US.
"Paid to go to college". I'm back to school in a hearbeat.
I'll bet they value education. It is a job, and an easy one. The Finland miracle is a bit amusing, as if a small monolithic nation's model could apply and work in a tremendously more diverse and large nation.
Originally posted by techsouth And not long after, graduate school will need to become a "right" for the same reason.
(Shrug) So what if it graduate school did eventually become free and universally available to those who want it? What is the downside of having a more educated populace?
Originally posted by techsouth It is far from irrelevant.
As things are now, the state is obligated to babysit every child of school age no matter how disruptive or how uninterested that child is in learning. That not only wastes taxpayer money, but also diminishes the effectiveness of education for other students who might actually have cared about learning.
The government does ...[text shortened]... But it has not been elevated to a "right" and does not necessarily cover all rural residences.
I really don't know what you are talking about; there is no right to an education in the US. In addition, far from being "obligated to babysit every child of school age no matter how disruptive or how uninterested that child is in learning" schools routinely punish students with suspensions and expulsions'; over 3 million of the former and 100,000 of the latter each year.
Of course, compulsory education laws are in place, but that no more makes education a "right" then speed limits make going slower a "right". Personally I would favor ending CE laws and that could be done at the State level without violation of anybody's "right to an education" (which does not exist in the US though other nations have Constitutional or statutory provisions asserting such a "right"😉.
Originally posted by whodey For those who say that we have a natural right to health care, where does that end, if at all?
Do people have the right to any medical procedure? Does it mean that people have the right to equal quality of health care etc?
It seems to me that both governmental programs and private insurance deny people some forms of health care. So are both violating our natural rights by doing so?
If you need a life saving operation one day, you'll be singing a very different tune Whodey...I guarantee it!😲
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) So what if it graduate school did eventually become free and universally available to those who want it? What is the downside of having a more educated populace?
An even larger budget deficit. If that doesn't matter, screw the education, and just give us the money. We can be ignorant, eloquent, and wildly extravagant. Money to do whatever we want!!! 🙄😲
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) So what if it graduate school did eventually become free and universally available to those who want it? What is the downside of having a more educated populace?
"more educated"?
You fail to understand the premise to which I was responding. The thought is that a high school diploma does not provide any meaningful ability to get a good job, so now college must be free. The point is that as a consequence of our current education system, public schools are not educating anyone. My contention is that no long after college becomes "free", and everyone gets a free four year vacation after high school regardless of any real desire to learn, that college will be as useless our high schools currently are. Taxpayers would be paying for basket weaving degrees as well as engineering degrees. Then graduate school would need to become "free" too because colleges would have become useless.
That is hardly the recipe for creating a well educated society, but it is the recipe for racking up even more national debt. The government does not need to be paying for degrees when the students have no skin in the game themselves.
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) So what if it graduate school did eventually become free and universally available to those who want it? What is the downside of having a more educated populace?
Fortunately I was paid to go to graduate school rather than it being merely "free."
Originally posted by no1marauder I really don't know what you are talking about; there is no right to an education in the US. In addition, far from being "obligated to babysit every child of school age no matter how disruptive or how uninterested that child is in learning" schools routinely punish students with suspensions and expulsions'; over 3 million of the former and 100,000 of th ...[text shortened]... e US though other nations have Constitutional or statutory provisions asserting such a "right"😉.
Students that are expelled from public schools in most cases must be given an alternative education option. Either way, the taxpayer must pay for babysitting as the disruptive students wear down the enthusiasm of teachers and distract other students.
You fail to understand the premise to which I was responding. The thought is that a high school diploma does not provide any meaningful ability to get a good job, so now college must be free. The point is that as a consequence of our current education system, public schools are not educating anyone. My contention is that no long afte ...[text shortened]... nt does not need to be paying for degrees when the students have no skin in the game themselves.
In other words, you just wanted to rant and rave without discussing anything substantive.
Sorry I misunderstood your intent. Yes people who go to grad school ARE "more educated" than those who don't. And the evidence refutes your notion that widespread availability of higher education devalues it; a far higher percentage of young people go to college than they did 30 years ago or so yet the difference in earnings between a college educated person and a non-college educated person has sharply increased.
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) So what if it graduate school did eventually become free and universally available to those who want it? What is the downside of having a more educated populace?
10 Mar '16 07:22
Right to health care
Back to Top