• Literacy Not A Right For Detroit School Kids According To State
    76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;51417334]To be fair, you can't persue any of those things without knowing how to read[/QUOTE] I mean, yeah you can? The first two you get just from being an adult in America and the last one is just an ideal. Being illiterate doesn't stop you from having all of those freedoms. [editline]a[/editline] I'm not supporting the decision but that's a shitty argument.
Fun fact: George Washington could barely spell at a 3rd grade level by time he was elected president Jokes aside, these kids need learn to read because when I'm old I need to be sure they can read a tax form so I get my Social Security check.
the best part about this thread is the number of people arguing that its ok for people to not be taught how to read in public school that went to public school. like your school is 99% of the reason you can even write these forum posts. your parents and grand parents probably went to public school and were taught too read too.
People really need to learn that there are different [I]kinds[/I] of human rights that require different actions to guarantee to a citizenry. Saying "well it's not in the bill of rights" doesn't mean shit - the US is signatory to dozens of different international human rights agreements, this goes way, way beyond what's enshrined in an old document. There are two main kinds of rights in human rights theory - [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights"]negative and positive rights[/URL]. Positive rights have to be acted on to bring about - negative rights have to be [I]not[/I] acted on. Then, there's the three main categories of human rights - civil, political, and social. Civil rights are what you're most familiar with - rights within a civil society. Most [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights"]civil and political rights[/URL] are [I]negative rights[/I], meaning that they necessitate [I]inaction[/I] by the government. Freedom of speech requires the government to [I]not[/I] take action against your speech. Freedom of religion requires the government to [I]not[/I] make any law respecting an establishment of religion. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is rooted in civil and political rights and these ideas of rights can be traced waaay back to early liberal philosophy. Social rights is what the US is shit at. More broadly called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights"]economic, social, and cultural rights[/URL], mostly outlined in the ICESCR, these are effectively all positive rights that require the government to [I]take continuous action[/I] in order to guarantee their fulfillment. Unlike the right to freedom of speech, the right to clean water cannot be guaranteed [I]without the government actively involving itself in making sure each citizen has access to clean water.[/I] Historically, the Soviet Union and other communist countries prioritized ESC rights over civil and political rights, choosing to guarantee the right to a job, the right to food, the right to labor, the right to certain economic and social ideas over the right to political participation of freedom of expression. That didn't work - and the US is scared of social rights as "communism" now. Social democracy is the only existing form of government that emphasizes ESC rights on the same degree as political and civil rights, encouraging both political participation and simultaneously establishing the government's role as an arbiter of the rights of the citizens, permitting negative rights and actively pursuing positive rights. Basically, literacy can and [I]should be[/I] a guaranteed positive social and civil right in any decent modern society. Ayn Rand and other American philosophers basically deny social rights by saying there is no "right to a job," and that's infected American culture and prevented the country from emphasizing people's social rights to certain social goods that most other decent modern countries have the government attempt to guarantee.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51424967]Rights don't necessarily have to be used by citizens. Everyone has a right to bear arms, but not everyone owns a gun - by choice in most, if not all cases. It's the same thing. Having a right to literacy doesn't mean the government is required to force you to learn how to read, just as it can't force you to own a gun. But, it legally allows you to gain such if you press for it.[/QUOTE] Literacy [I]should[/I] be a guaranteed positive right, as should access to clean water. The government should have the [I]responsibility[/I] to provide literacy and clean water to all citizens. You're portraying it as a negative right, like the right to bear arms, when it's quintessentially different - you're saying the government has a responsibility to [I]not[/I] interrupt your pursuit of literacy, like they shouldn't interrupt your ownership of a gun, when it should be that the government has a responsibility to [I]provide[/I] literacy to you, as a citizen. Nobody thinks the government should provide guns to people, they think the government shouldn't take them away - literacy is not a negative right, it's a positive one, and the government needs to guarantee it to all citizens. If you decide to not take advantage of the government's attempts to provide clean drinking water, and instead slurp up some melting roadside slush, that's your right as well - but the government should make clean drinking water so readily available to all citizens that drinking literal mud water off the side of the road shouldn't ever be a [I]necessity.[/I]
When the government has a duty to do something it has to extract that out of someone else. Normally this is done via taxes. So the more you demand government give you the more it has to extract from you. And it is a very inefficient system. The government literally wastes millions, if not billions, of dollars every year. But also, the reason why the US is built on the system of "negative" rights as its been called is because the whole concept of the "American dream" is to achieve things for yourself. Rather than having the government hold your hand and guide you through life. What Emperor Scorpious II said was correct. The government has no powers to block people from learning. Just like they technically have no powers to regulate firearms. America is not about "positive rights." Anyway, this court case is just like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia]Warren v. District of Columbia[/url]. The government has no duty to protect you or provide you anything under common law. The simple fact of the matter is some people cannot learn how to read and/or write. And it would be silly to say that those people could sue the government for "failing" to teach those people to read and/or write. Just as the same as its silly to sue the government for "failing" to protect you when the police don't arrive in time to stop something from happening to you.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51426578]When the government has a duty to do something it has to extract that out of someone else. Normally this is done via taxes. So the more you demand government give you the more it has to extract from you. And it is a very inefficient system. The government literally wastes millions, if not billions, of dollars every year. [/QUOTE] Education isn't a zero sum game, an uneducated population is a poor population; if the U.S fails to cough up the money to educate it's students adequately it will lose [B]far[/B] more in productivity and quality of life than ever was saved. The fact we even have to debate about this is absurd, it was established over a hundred years ago that education was paramount to having a healthy society, country, and economy. [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] Even barring the secondary benefits of education, what are uneducated people supposed to do for work, as the manufacturing industry is becoming completely automated, the service industry is soon to follow. There will be very little space for unskilled labor.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51426753]Education isn't a zero sum game, an uneducated population is a poor population; if the U.S fails to cough up the money to educate it's students adequately it will lose [B]far[/B] more in productivity and quality of life than ever was saved. The fact we even have to debate about this is absurd, it was established over a hundred years ago that education was paramount to having a healthy society, country, and economy. [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] Even barring the secondary benefits of education, what are uneducated people supposed to do for work, as the manufacturing industry is becoming completely automated, the service industry is soon to follow. There will be very little space for unskilled labor.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing against education. I'm arguing against the argument that its a "positive right." Education is important. But to say its a "right" and that if the government fails to give it to you then you can sue the crap out of the government is stupid. Because those big government payout from lawsuits are from taxpayer money. As I stated in an earlier post, the people, if the local education system is failing so much, need to get on their legislators. Not suing the government trying to claim there is a "positive right" to education.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51426823]I'm not arguing against education. I'm arguing against the argument that its a "positive right." Education is important. But to say its a "right" and that if the government fails to give it to you then you can sue the crap out of the government is stupid. Because those big government payout from lawsuits are from taxpayer money. As I stated in an earlier post, the people, if the local education system is failing so much, need to get on their legislators. Not suing the government trying to claim there is a "positive right" to education.[/QUOTE] Education is fundamental to the modern world, so I would consider it a positive right. Attending education is a legal requirement in the states, so obviously previous lawmakers thought similar. And hell yes the government should be held liable for failing to teach students even the most basic of skills (reading, writing, math). There are multiple ways to achieve a goal, and have you ever actually tried changing local policy? Because especially when it comes to money, it's an almost impossible battle to win.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51426938]Education is fundamental to the modern world, so I would consider it a positive right. Attending education is a legal requirement in the states, so obviously previous lawmakers thought similar. And hell yes the government should be held liable for failing to teach students even the most basic of skills (reading, writing, math). There are multiple ways to achieve a goal, and have you ever actually tried changing local policy? Because especially when it comes to money, it's an almost impossible battle to win.[/QUOTE] Obviously you know nothing of me. As I have been active in contacting local politicians who ostensibly are supposed to be representing me. Are firefighters a right? Are police a right? There is a lot of things the government provides that are not rights.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51426967]Obviously you know nothing of me. As I have been active in contacting local politicians who ostensibly are supposed to be representing me.[/quote] Has it caused a change in fiscal policy? [QUOTE=Kigen;51426967]Are firefighters a right? Are police a right? There is a lot of things the government provides that are not rights.[/QUOTE] Ok? The government provides things that are and aren't rights. I think there's a right to education (it's fundamental to modern society), and that states should be held accountable for their failure.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51427009]Has it caused a change in fiscal policy? Ok? The government provides things that are and aren't rights. I think there's a right to education (it's fundamental to modern society), and that states should be held accountable for their failure.[/QUOTE] I wish states were held accountable for their failure to educate. Oklahoma is one of the worst states for education because they keep cutting funding to schools and giving it to other things. Our roads are shit, our infrastructure is shit, our education is shit. I honestly couldn't tell you where they're putting the money, because it doesn't fucking show in our lives.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51427128]I wish states were held accountable for their failure to educate. Oklahoma is one of the worst states for education because they keep cutting funding to schools and giving it to other things. Our roads are shit, our infrastructure is shit, our education is shit.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, it's crazy. I live in Utah, which ranks the lowest in per student funding; it's insane how packed some of my classes were in highschool.
I just can't believe people are defending this, saying "well you can't provide things without money from taxes, I don't like taxes so some people shouldn't get to read or write" Good god do you even realise what you're saying, is this the 1800s where the peasant folk don't get educated because "you can totally live a happy life without reading or writing". Work inhuman hours in horrible factories with no safety standards either while you're at it, after all, all that money the company was spending looking out for your welfare was lost profit. Get the kids back to work too, their small hands are perfect for delicate work, they can fit in places adults can't and the best thing is that they won't know any better if you get them young. I don't want to stereotype people, but is this an American thing? Has this "conservative boom" lead to you taking an ultra right wing interpretation of the Constitution, where ALL government spending is evil so you've got to do everything yourself because you can't be a parasite on the state? You didn't teach yourself to read and write? Well no handouts, better get good at... I don't even know what. I was going to put a job where you don't need to know how to do even that, but they literally do not exist. Even the most menial jobs, which as has already been mentioned, are being automated like it's nobody's business, will require a cv and basic maths skills. You have to fill out forms and sign contracts. You know, it's even worse than that. I've seen skilled adults with plenty of work experience struggle to find work because they aren't good with computers. We are living in an age where there is only going to be less and less work, where educational institutions have to step up and provide more skills than ever before, and there are people who are suggesting that it's okay for ANYONE to be illiterate because "you can still be happy" or "taxes are bad"??
The best part is that school is [I]compulsory[/I] in the US until 12th grade, with a few exceptions. The government literally does force you to be literate. That's what the public education system is - mandatory. It's a very clear example of the government guaranteeing a positive right for the greater good of society. Education is a right protected by our nation, no matter how much people try to privatize it and tear it down and make the implementation unequal. Compulsory education is a necessity for a functional modern nation - and it should be expanded, not torn down by making claims that literacy isn't a right.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51426578]When the government has a duty to do something it has to extract that out of someone else. Normally this is done via taxes. So the more you demand government give you the more it has to extract from you. And it is a very inefficient system. The government literally wastes millions, if not billions, of dollars every year. But also, the reason why the US is built on the system of "negative" rights as its been called is because the whole concept of the "American dream" is to achieve things for yourself. Rather than having the government hold your hand and guide you through life. What Emperor Scorpious II said was correct. The government has no powers to block people from learning. Just like they technically have no powers to regulate firearms. America is not about "positive rights." Anyway, this court case is just like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia]Warren v. District of Columbia[/url]. The government has no duty to protect you or provide you anything under common law. The simple fact of the matter is some people cannot learn how to read and/or write. And it would be silly to say that those people could sue the government for "failing" to teach those people to read and/or write. Just as the same as its silly to sue the government for "failing" to protect you when the police don't arrive in time to stop something from happening to you.[/QUOTE] Try and write this post if you had had to teach yourself to write and read from an early age oh wait, i wouldn't be reading this then and you wouldn't even be able to communicate with me in a meaningful way at all. I don't want your world to exist. I think your version of governance will literally cripple the US into a brain dead nation of losers. [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;51426967]Obviously you know nothing of me. As I have been active in contacting local politicians who ostensibly are supposed to be representing me. Are firefighters a right? Are police a right? There is a lot of things the government provides that are not rights.[/QUOTE] Those should be rights, yes. Or do you want to go back to the concept of paying fire fighters to cover your house specifically, much like insurance, but without the assurance that they'll actually show up? Historically, this didn't work, so why are you obsessed with historically broken ideals?
Individual States choose to make grade school compulsory. This is not a right. Its just a law. Like any other law. The federal government, for instance, cannot force school on anyone. And sorry, but I like the idea that this country was founded on. Freedom from interference from the government unless its absolutely necessary. The American dream is to make it on one's own merits. Not to have things handed to you on a silver platter. Progress could not be made if this country wasn't founded in the way it was. On the concept of a very limited federal government. It is the states that can "experiment" with ideals (laws). For instance, there is nothing stopping a state government from making universal healthcare. But the Constitution does state the federal government has no business involved in it. And if you make everything a right then nothing is a right. Throwing the "right" label on everything diminishes the value of those so called "negative rights." Because the further you expand government power, the greater the chance it can be used against you. Just think, that NSA spying power in the "Patriot Act", the drone strikes, all of of that is now Trump's. Because so many were happy to expand it when their preferred party was in power. The government is its own entity, it will always act in its own self-interest. If you make "free" grade school education a right that the government has to provide the further the government can twist it to pass off their own version of history or indoctrinate towards a political view for example. As we've seen in countries like Japan and China respectively. The states in this country still provide that home schooling is allowed, that private schools are still allowed. And there is a lot of flexibility for those schools.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428250]Individual States choose to make grade school compulsory. This is not a right. Its just a law. Like any other law. The federal government, for instance, cannot force school on anyone. And sorry, but I like the idea that this country was founded on. Freedom from interference from the government unless its absolutely necessary. The American dream is to make it on one's own merits. Not to have things handed to you on a silver platter. Progress could not be made if this country wasn't founded in the way it was. On the concept of a very limited federal government. It is the states that can "experiment" with ideals (laws). For instance, there is nothing stopping a state government from making universal healthcare. But the Constitution does state the federal government has no business involved in it. And if you make everything a right then nothing is a right. Throwing the "right" label on everything diminishes the value of those so called "negative rights." Because the further you expand government power, the greater the chance it can be used against you. Just think, that NSA spying power in the "Patriot Act", the drone strikes, all of of that is now Trump's. Because so many were happy to expand it when their preferred party was in power. The government is its own entity, it will always act in its own self-interest. If you make "free" grade school education a right that the government has to provide the further the government can twist it to pass off their own version of history or indoctrinate towards a political view for example. As we've seen in countries like Japan and China respectively. The states in this country still provide that home schooling is allowed, that private schools are still allowed. And there is a lot of flexibility for those schools.[/QUOTE] it's like you don't live in the modern world things from the founding of america, and today are not really comparable so to suggest they should behave the same in terms of how they prepare the citizenry is just flat out stupid to me [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] like your whole mindset, if it comes to fruition, would result in massive brain drain for the US.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428250]Individual States choose to make grade school compulsory. This is not a right. Its just a law. Like any other law. The federal government, for instance, cannot force school on anyone. And sorry, but I like the idea that this country was founded on. Freedom from interference from the government unless its absolutely necessary. The American dream is to make it on one's own merits. Not to have things handed to you on a silver platter. Progress could not be made if this country wasn't founded in the way it was. On the concept of a very limited federal government. It is the states that can "experiment" with ideals (laws). For instance, there is nothing stopping a state government from making universal healthcare. But the Constitution does state the federal government has no business involved in it. And if you make everything a right then nothing is a right. Throwing the "right" label on everything diminishes the value of those so called "negative rights." Because the further you expand government power, the greater the chance it can be used against you. Just think, that NSA spying power in the "Patriot Act", the drone strikes, all of of that is now Trump's. Because so many were happy to expand it when their preferred party was in power. The government is its own entity, it will always act in its own self-interest. If you make "free" grade school education a right that the government has to provide the further the government can twist it to pass off their own version of history or indoctrinate towards a political view for example. As we've seen in countries like Japan and China respectively. The states in this country still provide that home schooling is allowed, that private schools are still allowed. And there is a lot of flexibility for those schools.[/QUOTE] It's amusing to think the free market will provide non-biased schools. Private schools and homeschools have a pretty bad reputation for being literal indoctrination centers. The people running the schools will still be shoving some revisionist shit down the kids' throats just like the public schools already do, but the difference is that those schools won't be as accountable to the community. Also that's kind of a warped view of the constitution that contrasts with hundreds of years of jurisprudence, even Obamacare, which still isn't universal healthcare and actually REQUIRES people to buy stuff was still ruled constitutional, with a pretty damn solid argument if you read the ruling as to why. The big debate at the drafting of the constitution actually was BETWEEN people in favor of a strong mutable federal government, and those opposed, the opposition lost. And just like many other old ideas, absolute belief in the American dream is weak and has been falling apart since the 70s. It used to be pretty true and appealing to get people to leave Europe and come here, we had a labor shortage for most of our history, so if you were to come here, and work hard, you'd earn some good wages and have a very nice life, if they didn't continually reward you like with raising wages and making things safer you could always move out west too. Nowadays our economy really isn't in that special place anymore. The world really doesn't work on just your own merit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51428283]it's like you don't live in the modern world things from the founding of america, and today are not really comparable so to suggest they should behave the same in terms of how they prepare the citizenry is just flat out stupid to me [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] like your whole mindset, if it comes to fruition, would result in massive brain drain for the US.[/QUOTE] It didn't result in it before. Here is a question, why is the US the "top" country so to speak? Why was the US seen as so integral to the world before even WW1? Because we allowed people to expand and succeed or fail on their own. It is NOT the governments responsibility to enforce equal outcome. The only thing that is protected in the US is equal opportunity. Everyone has a fair shot at life as everyone else.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428357]It didn't result in it before. Here is a question, why is the US the "top" country so to speak? Why was the US seen as so integral to the world before even WW1? Because we allowed people to expand and succeed or fail on their own. It is NOT the governments responsibility to enforce equal outcome. The only thing that is protected in the US is equal opportunity. Everyone has a fair shot at life as everyone else.[/QUOTE] The revisionism it burns. Also more lies on what the US guarantees. It'd be a bit tiring to go through the US history so instead I'll just ask; how is guaranteeing education NOT guaranteeing equal opportunity?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51428316]It's amusing to think the free market will provide non-biased schools. Private schools and homeschools have a pretty bad reputation for being literal indoctrination centers. The people running the schools will still be shoving some revisionist shit down the kids' throats just like the public schools already do, but the difference is that those schools won't be as accountable to the community. Also that's kind of a warped view of the constitution that contrasts with hundreds of years of jurisprudence, even Obamacare, which still isn't universal healthcare and actually REQUIRES people to buy stuff was still ruled constitutional, with a pretty damn solid argument if you read the ruling as to why. The big debate at the drafting of the constitution actually was BETWEEN people in favor of a strong mutable federal government, and those opposed, the opposition lost. And just like many other old ideas, absolute belief in the American dream is weak and has been falling apart since the 70s. It used to be pretty true and appealing to get people to leave Europe and come here, we had a labor shortage for most of our history, so if you were to come here, and work hard, you'd earn some good wages and have a very nice life, if they didn't continually reward you like with raising wages and making things safer you could always move out west too. Nowadays our economy really isn't in that special place anymore. The world really doesn't work on just your own merit.[/QUOTE] You are arguing for a socialist government. And as we've seen time and time again it fails and makes the government more influential. When the government is the sole provider it doesn't have any reason to do any better than it wants to. That is why there is so much separation of powers in the US. So that there are multiple governments with competing ideals. And the private schools are accountable to the parents of the child. Just like with home schooling. Parents choose how to raise their kid. Also, did you not know that [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education#United_States]compulsory education in the US started in order to annihilate the native American culture[/url]? I will keep my American dream. My independence. You can be happy wherever you are. I don't force my ideals down your throat. So I don't want your ideals forced down my throat or those of my family. [editline]25th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51428377]The revisionism it burns. Also more lies on what the US guarantees. It'd be a bit tiring to go through the US history so instead I'll just ask; how is guaranteeing education NOT guaranteeing equal opportunity?[/QUOTE] Because its equal opportunity. Opportunity to learn. Not equal outcome. Not equal education level. Do you not know how devalued a high school diploma is now? How devalued even college degrees are getting?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428381]You are arguing for a socialist government. And as we've seen time and time again it fails and makes the government more influential. When the government is the sole provider it doesn't have any reason to do any better than it wants to. That is why there is so much separation of powers in the US. So that there are multiple governments with competing ideals. And the private schools are accountable to the parents of the child. Just like with home schooling. Parents choose how to raise their kid. Also, did you not know that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education#United_States"]compulsory education in the US started in order to annihilate the native American culture[/URL]? I will keep my American dream. My independence. You can be happy wherever you are. I don't force my ideals down your throat. So I don't want your ideals forced down my throat or those of my family.[/QUOTE] "socialist" [B]"socialist"[/B] [U][I][B]"socialist" [/B][/I][/U] Ooh shit he brought out the buzzword and conflated a planned economy with socialism. The small government has failed multiple times before and been forced to grow, regardless of what laissez-faire philosophy might promise. If it doesn't do so, it collapses and gets replaced, you know what would have likely happened had FDR not enacted the new deal? The country would have fallen to revolution, either to the AFL-CIO & wobblies or to fascists, it's why most rich people actually don't support libertarian capitalist economics, because they know that without SOME wealth redistribution, things would fall apart. Public schooling doesn't mean the government is the sole provider btw, I don't think anyone in the US is arguing that. And they still do delegate it to make things easier, and if things are failing, the population will demand better. [quote]Because its equal opportunity. Opportunity to learn. Not equal outcome. Not equal education level. Do you not know how devalued a high school diploma is now? How devalued even college degrees are getting?[/quote] It's really not equal opportunity since it's completely dependent on your parent's ability to put you into a school while you're young. You know, like how it used to be. The argument is that by providing everyone with a decent education, they're equipped to try their best to make it on their own in the ~real world~, since without that knowledge and skills even fewer places will want you. High school diplomas are devalued because the jobs the education it provides are rapidly disappearing due to how the economy is changing, you know, as skills required to make it in the modern world rise with technology. And because of that, people are wanting college to be made more accessable, it's the same argument. It's just a bunch of ideology to put so much faith in the market.
[QUOTE=Octopod;51425279]i would say at the very least that pursuing life, liberty and happiness as an illiterate is very very hard, but not impossible. it's not that i can't prove that it is possible -- although i've seen many people here who possess little to no knowledge land basic jobs such as construction, but it's more that i can't prove that it's impossible.[/QUOTE] some Labor jobs pay pretty good
[QUOTE=sipderbat;51428427]some Labor jobs pay pretty good[/QUOTE] They can be, but they're pretty unreliable too. That's what the whole decline of the American dream thing is about. Once upon a time, you could step right out of high school, get a unionized factory job that pays well enough that you can have a family and be spitting out kids before you hit 30. But then economics happened. Since the skills are low, it's very liable to outsourcing/undercutting.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428250]Individual States choose to make grade school compulsory. This is not a right. Its just a law. Like any other law. The federal government, for instance, cannot force school on anyone. And sorry, but I like the idea that this country was founded on. Freedom from interference from the government unless its absolutely necessary. The American dream is to make it on one's own merits. Not to have things handed to you on a silver platter. Progress could not be made if this country wasn't founded in the way it was. On the concept of a very limited federal government. It is the states that can "experiment" with ideals (laws). For instance, there is nothing stopping a state government from making universal healthcare. But the Constitution does state the federal government has no business involved in it. And if you make everything a right then nothing is a right. Throwing the "right" label on everything diminishes the value of those so called "negative rights." Because the further you expand government power, the greater the chance it can be used against you. Just think, that NSA spying power in the "Patriot Act", the drone strikes, all of of that is now Trump's. Because so many were happy to expand it when their preferred party was in power. The government is its own entity, it will always act in its own self-interest. If you make "free" grade school education a right that the government has to provide the further the government can twist it to pass off their own version of history or indoctrinate towards a political view for example. As we've seen in countries like Japan and China respectively. The states in this country still provide that home schooling is allowed, that private schools are still allowed. And there is a lot of flexibility for those schools.[/QUOTE] You can quote the Incredibles all you like about "nothing being a right when everything is", but it won't make it true. Education is a basic right. The government should at the very, very, very least guarantee that you can read and write. Do away with that if you like, but see how quickly the US stops being a world power because your citizens can't even fucking read. I would also point out that your persective of the federal government as some history altering, bias organisation is kinda just wrong. It's the States who mess with what should be taught, and I'm not sure why you'd trust them to be honest.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51428419] It's really not equal opportunity since it's completely dependent on your parent's ability to put you into a school while you're young. You know, like how it used to be. The argument is that by providing everyone with a decent education, they're equipped to try their best to make it on their own in the ~real world~, since without that knowledge and skills even fewer places will want you. High school diplomas are devalued because the jobs the education it provides are rapidly disappearing due to how the economy is changing, you know, as skills required to make it in the modern world rise with technology. And because of that, people are wanting college to be made more accessable, it's the same argument. It's just a bunch of ideology to put so much faith in the market.[/QUOTE] "No child left behind." It devalued the crap out of the high school diploma. By giving a high school diploma to children who had not actually earned it. Some people won't succeed. Its a fact of life that all living organisms on this planet live with. They all succeed or fail based on their own merits. Humans aren't special in that regard.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428458]"No child left behind." It devalued the crap out of the high school diploma. By giving a high school diploma to children who had not actually earned it. Some people won't succeed. Its a fact of life that all living organisms on this planet live with. They all succeed or fail based on their own merits. Humans aren't special in that regard.[/QUOTE] Okay and? That's unrelated, of course no child left behind is garbage (it also doesn't give diplomas to those who don't earn it IIRC, that's a completely different policy.) But it's not why high school diplomas carry comparatively little value nowadays. We were talking about having public schooling available for everybody, not whether they actually make use of it. edit: though, "not earning it" can be due to a lot of reasons beyond just individual failure. There are a lot of reasons kids in detroits are having trouble
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428458]"No child left behind." It devalued the crap out of the high school diploma. By giving a high school diploma to children who had not actually earned it. Some people won't succeed. Its a fact of life that all living organisms on this planet live with. They all succeed or fail based on their own merits. Humans aren't special in that regard.[/QUOTE] "POLICY A IS GARBAGE, THEREFORE ALL POLICY IS GARBAGE PUBLIC SCHOOLING DID NOT FAIL ME"
[QUOTE=Kigen;51428458]"No child left behind." It devalued the crap out of the high school diploma. By giving a high school diploma to children who had not actually earned it. Some people won't succeed. Its a fact of life that all living organisms on this planet live with. They all succeed or fail based on their own merits. Humans aren't special in that regard.[/QUOTE] Lol, even though we could afford for everyone to live comfortably, you're alright with people dying because they're not good enough in your and/or (your perception of) the law's eyes? Or what definition of 'failure' are you going by?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.