|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 18, 2007, 2:26 am
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>I agree with Pat that Education is a natural right, and that this
>>rightr is
>> being denied students.
>
> Natural rights are those that exist outside of another individual. A
> "right" to be educated exists in the same way that the right to pursue
> happiness exists. However, there is no obligation to provide for that
> right.
>
> For example, I have the right to bear arms. But I do not have the
> right to steal from you to buy my gun (or steal your gun). Education
> works the same way. As soon as you take from another, by force, the
> money required to educate another person, you've violated that first
> person's right to property. Rights also do not require the violation
> of other rights to exist.
>
> Extending this to public education. If, we volunteer our money to a
> "public" school, then we have not violated anyones rights. As soon as
> they attach the rule of force to that (for example, property taxes),
> our right to property has been violated, no matter that the purpose
> may be noble, like enabling children to have the right to be educated.
>
> The right to a good education is only being denied to the students in
> that their parents are not insistent that their children get a good
> education and do something about it. It is our right to property that
> is being violated and this is of greater concern than the poor
> education of students (I think they're related. Don't teach people
> properly and they won't understand the difference between right,
> privilege and tough luck. They'll start asserting rights where they
> don't exist and giving away the ones that do).
>
You know what, in the end, all of this starts to sound to me like
justifications of selfishness.
You want all the liberty, all the freedom - and to hell with anyone or
anything that isn't part of your personal nuclear family/property.
Part of living in even a minimally-civilized society is sharing certain
burdens, one of which is paying at least some *minimal* attention to the
well-being and education of children. So what if their parents are
f*ckheads - that isn't the *kids'* fault, and I don't mind paying to help
kids *as long as that's what's being done*.
Frankly, after a while, all of the "rights don't mean responsibilities to
anyone" arguments strike me as being ethically hollow. All that's done
is a continual harping upon the current system, and even when someone
tries to suggest other ways, it always comes back to that same string.
I don;t know how many times a person can say "the current system needs to
be replaced". Of course, it never will be, because most people can't get
their minds up above the morass to even *consider* alternate ideas. It's
just harp, harp, harp.
Blame the parents, fine, f*ck 'em, right? And even though it's not a
child's fault that a couple of sh*theads refused to use birth contriol,
well f*ck the kids, too, right? F*ck any ideas, f*ck *anything* and
*everything* that might require a few sheckels from your pocket, right?
Basically, you want to have your cake, and eat it, too. Except that a
just society concerned with liberty does not simply appear out of nowhere
- if you let sh*theads and a-holes bring kids into the world and do
nothing to even *try* to help those kids learn a better way, don't whine
when the kids grow up to be theives | 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
