Where does it say you get a free education?

[Gnostic]

That's right, public education is the equivalent of public housing. It's the option of last resort. Our founding fathers never intended for everyone to get a free ride until they reached college. Public school is and always has been for the indigent and if you are sending your child to public school you should be arrested for child abuse. Why are you having kids if you can't afford to give them a proper education? Every time there's an election to give more money to public schools I vote against them. What happened to the money I gave you last time? And don't even try to justify the lottery by saying them money goes to schools when we don't need either. As for prayer in schools; you can pray anytime you want, who's stoppin' ya? Get rid of public schools, public housing and privatize the world.

[manhattan]

It says so in Article XI of the New York State Constitution (http://assembly.state.ny.us/cgi-bin/const?art=13).

Hope this helps.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Gnostic
That's right, public education is the equivalent of public housing.
Really? Do colleges give higher weight to applicants that lived in private housing? Does housing help with the assimilation into American society?

Our founding fathers never intended for everyone to get a free ride until they reached college.
My understanding is that the "demo" in "Democracy" refers to living people, not dead ones.

Public school is and always has been for the indigent
It really doesn't help your argument to include obviously false statements.

and if you are sending your child to public school you should be arrested for child abuse.
Doing something you don't agree with is "child abuse"? If they teach their children a religion you don't agree with, is that child abuse? What if they don't buy the latest fashion in clothing for their children?

Why are you having kids if you can't afford to give them a proper education?
Who says that public school aren't a proper education? If something is expensive, is it necessarily good? And who says they can't afford private school? Maybe they're saving the money for more important things like, say, food and clothing.

And don't even try to justify the lottery by saying them money goes to schools when we don't need either. As for prayer in schools; you can pray anytime you want, who's stoppin' ya?
What do these statements have to do with the topic?

[brad_d]

Originally posted by Gnostic
Our founding fathers never intended for everyone to get a free ride until they reached college.
Perhaps not, and the federal government has pretty much kept itself out of the business of educating kids. What's the problem?

Public education is handled at the state level. California's Constitution (Article IX (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9)) requires that the state do it.

Are we feeling a bit Libertarian today?

[Alessan]

Gimme a break.

The primary purpose of a government - any government - is not "protection of rights". It's doing what's best for the people. A well educated populace is happier, more productive, harder-working, more innovative, more law-abiding and less secestable to corruptive influence. No democracy can exist without an educated citizenry. How's that for reasons?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Alessan
Gimme a break.

The primary purpose of a government - any government - is not "protection of rights". It's doing what's best for the people.


That's one opinion. Personally I think the primary purpose of a legitimate government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Of course in a round about way I suppose that could be considered what's best for the people.

I'm sure communist governments were based on doing what was best for the people. Great idea.

Marc

[Alessan]

Marc, this kind of argument can go on and on with neither side ever agreeing. My personal view of things is that Protection of Rights is both a guiding force behind a government's policy and a limitation of a government's power. Without it, no legitimate government can exist. However, it is not the sole pupose of the government. It fact, I can define the purpose of government, in general, as "Anything the voters want, so long as it doesn't violate people's rights".

And do go around bandying "Communist!" at me. It is both immature and archaic. I think they we are all to intelligent to resort to flimsy straw men.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Alessan
Marc, this kind of argument can go on and on with neither side ever agreeing. My personal view of things is that Protection of Rights is both a guiding force behind a government's policy and a limitation of a government's power. Without it, no legitimate government can exist. However, it is not the sole pupose of the government. It fact, I can define the purpose of government, in general, as "Anything the voters want, so long as it doesn't violate people's rights".


Well that's a whole 'nother can of worms there. What rights do we have? If you tax me to pay for housing or health care for others I think my rights are being violated. I don't think any human rights should infringe on anothers.



And do go around bandying "Communist!" at me. It is both immature and archaic. I think they we are all to intelligent to resort to flimsy straw men.

Oh I didn't call you a commie or anything. I just pointed to a governmental system which does not respect individual rights for the benefit of the greater good for society. I could also point to fascism if you'd like.

At any rate I'll stop this now since I don't wish to hijack this thread. Suffice it to say I'm no fan of public education but I'm not interested in dismantling it at this point in time.

Marc

[Le Sang]

Originally posted by Alessan
The primary purpose of a government - any government - is not "protection of rights"It's doing what's best for the people.

I was always under the impression that Jefferson was more accurate about this; government is established to protect the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness (US Declaration of Independence). While public education is important, the lack of it impunes none of these things. The uneducated are every bit as capable of happiness as the educated are; indeed, it is said that "ignorance is bliss."

I am not opposed to the existence of public schools. I disagree with some of the programs, but these have generally been approved by elected bodies, and thus I am willing to assume that they reflect the will of the people. I do feel that the standards must be made stricter, but that is not relevant to this thread except to the extent that it affects funding. Perhaps it is time to stop coddling students and make them work for their grades?

I apologise if I have breached decorum or broken procedure in any way; this forum is new to me. I hope I can learn to do better as time passes; the people here are respectable and hold impressive debates - I hope someday to be one of you.

[Guinastasia]

You know, I love it when people drag up the whole, "The Founding Fathers meant this, the FF meant that..."
It's pretty weak logic. After all, the FF didn't intend for women or blacks to have the right to vote...should we throw that out too?

[RickJay]

There's actually a rational economic reason for the government providing education when it doesn't usually provide free food or housing. Education is an externality to a very large extent; that is to say, everyone benefits from its existence, but those who benefit have no free market reason to pay for it. Anything enjoyed by many that no one individual would pay for is customarily the domain of government to pay for - e.g. police, army, maintaining a currency, etc.

Education isn't a perfect example because people do pay for it to receive it, but by and large the absence of government intervention in this area would almost certainly result in a massive and immediate drop in the average level of schooling. The state and the populace have a direct vested interest in maintaning education levels.

[Alessan]

Marc - a can of worms, indeed. The logical extension of your philosophy is that the only things a government has any right to spend money on is cops, courts and a military. If we follow up with what you say (and which I soubt is what you mean) then you claim that your taxes should not be taken from you in order to, say, pave roads. A nation of dirt paths and private driveways does not seem that appealing.

As to your second point - I oppose communism, but from different reasons than you do:
1. Communist governments always seem to trample the rights of the individuals.
2. Communist governments don't work.

That's my criterea for government - efficiency, tempered by human rights. I want a system that will make my country strong, wealthy, invigorated and happy. so far, the best system I've found is the Capitalist Democracy.

[Monty]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
You know, I love it when people drag up the whole, "The Founding Fathers meant this, the FF meant that..."
It's pretty weak logic. After all, the FF didn't intend for women or blacks to have the right to vote...should we throw that out too?

Incorrect assertion. There's a great book entitled "Vindicating the Founding Fathers" which cites actual laws, state constitutions, and election results of the time.

Remember: it doesn't help your argument to make obviously false statements.

[kunilou]

Originally posted by Gnostic
Our founding fathers never intended for everyone to get a free ride until they reached college.

As noted in several previous posts, public education is a state-by-state thing. In Missouri, it's Article IX Section I of the state constitution.

"A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law." Later in the Article, the Constitution also calls for the establishment of public libraries.

So, Gnostic, do you mean the only things you want to support are things specifically spelled out in the Constitution of the United States? Just the Articles, or the Amendments as well. After all, the Founding Fathers never said anything about food inspections, a merchant marine, child labor and a buncha other stuff. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers did agree to keep slavery Constitutional, so I guess that's okay.

But then again, I may be just a flaming liberal to think that the will of the people of states to decide that a social service is so important that they make it a cornerstone of their state constitutions may be a good thing.

[Gnostic]

You got it right. If it doesn't specifically say the government can do something in the Constitution they by default are not allowed to do it. Rights are reserved for the people and the government enjoys only those rights that the people have given them. The government does few things well why would you want to turn your children over to them and say, "here, educate my kid because I don't have enough money to do it". There's basically four things I want the government can do: provide a system of redress with other citezens (the court system), repel the borders from invaders, deliver the mail, and leave me alone otherwise.

[Saltire]

Gnostic, I think you missed kunilou's point. Do you believe only in the U.S. Constitution, or do you also believe in the Constitutions of the individual states?

The U.S. Constitution does give power over all things it doesn't cover to the people or the individual states, which allows those states to put in articles codifying public education. As you've seen, many states have done so, maybe even all have done so.

If you don't want to be under a state constitution, you'd better move to the District of Columbia, I guess. Even the non-state territories have some sort of charter or constitution, I believe.

[Kimstu]

Monty replied to Guinastasia: After all, the FF didn't intend for women or blacks to have the right to vote...should we throw that out too?

Incorrect assertion. There's a great book entitled "Vindicating the Founding Fathers" which cites actual laws, state constitutions, and election results of the time.

Actually, Monty, the book's title is "Vindicating the Founders", and your claims for it are rather too sweeping. It is certainly incorrect to say that all the Founders were bigoted elitists who wanted to keep blacks and women down; but it is quite true that they deliberately omitted female and black suffrage from the provisions of the Constitution, for various reasons. And a number of them were personally convinced that women and blacks indeed should not have the same legal rights as white males. Consider John Adams' response (http://www.lapc.cc.ca.us/usr/hollandk/ps19/remem.html) to his wife Abigail when she wrote to him, "and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire that you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands."

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient--that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent--that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out. Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in Full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. I am sure every good Politician would plot, as long as he would against Despotism, Empire, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or Ochlocracy.

Adams is obviously being funny here, and he may in fact have believed that women had more practical power over men than vice versa. But equally obviously, he had no intention of proposing such an "extraordinary Code of Laws" as one that provided for the legal equality of women and men. And he was hardly alone among the Founders in this. So no, it wasn't "incorrect" for Guinastasia to point out that the Founders didn't intend to provide black or female suffrage. Whether some of them might have hoped that such liberalization would become possible in the future is another question.

As for Gnostic's comment that "government does few things well," I'd just point out that there are lots of private enterprises that don't do many things well either. Personally, I'm quite satisfied with the public-school education I got (although I can see why Gnostic might be resentful of the lousy job done by his or her English teacher), and having also attended private schools, I wouldn't say that either kind of education is automatically superior. Gnostic, I think you'll have to provide more cogent and reasoned evidence in favor of limiting the role of government to the courts and the military and the postal service before you'll get a lot of other people to agree with you.

[kunilou]

Originally posted by Gnostic
There's basically four things I want the government can do: provide a system of redress with other citezens (the court system), repel the borders from invaders, deliver the mail, and leave me alone otherwise.

As long as we're talking about the legitimate responsibilities of the Federal government, why do you think delivering the mail be one of them? We don't have a government-run telephone system, and thanks to UPS, FedEx and all the rest, we have many options for getting our packages delivered. Why isn't public mail the equivalent of public housing?

By the way, I don't want to get personal here, but as I have often noted, Mrs. Kunilou is a public school teacher. If anyone thinks she -- or the parents who entrust their children to her -- is committing child abuse (even speaking metaphorically), I'd like you to repeat that to my face.

[John Bredin]

"Our founding fathers never intended for everyone to get a free ride until they reached college."

Wrong! As others have pointed out, the Constitution doesn't address education because it is the charter of the federal government and education was considered by them to be a state and local matter. But there was a place where the Founding Fathers directly addressed some issues of state and local concern -- the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the related Land Ordinances.

Here's what the Northwest Ordinance had to say about public education:

"Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

And the Land Ordinance of 1785 created a system by which one section in each township (that's 1/36th of the land) in the territories was to be used for the purpose of public schools, either for the actual school site, to be sold to raise money for the schools, or both.

Doesn't sound to me like they thought education wasn't the public's business.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by kunilou
...as I have often noted, Mrs. Kunilou is a public school teacher. If anyone thinks she -- or the parents who entrust their children to her -- is committing child abuse (even speaking metaphorically), I'd like you to repeat that to my face.

Bra-VO!

What we're all dealing with here is someone who... how should I put this... was obviously not well-served by the public school system.

To call Public Education "abusive" is laughable. As kunilou pointed out, it's not funny, but it is a laughable notion, nontheless.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Gnostic
repel the borders from invaders

Does anyone else find this amusing? And hard to imagine?

[Alessan]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Originally posted by Gnostic
repel the borders from invaders

Does anyone else find this amusing? And hard to imagine?

Considering the fact that he's suggesting that the U.S. sould be defended by an illeterate, under-equipped, technologically obsolete military - it kinda makes sense. The enemy comes, the Army retreats, the borders are pulled back.