positive rights and negative rights

[n_huffhines]

We can look back at our own history and see that without govt involvement, many children were never educated to the point of literacy much less to the level of college ready.

For the record, I think most of our public systems are a joke. However, having moved a few times while my children have been in school, I can tell you that some local school districts are doing a relatively good job while others are ineffective and live in day to day chaos.

If you are going to propose the idea that all our kids should be educated, there is no way to accomplished without some sort of govt involvement.

I'd love some examples. I'm sure we can go back to the 19th century and find illiteracy, but doesn't mean it'd exist today without government.

You keep saying it won't happen without government involvement, but I still don't understand why. To me it's like saying kids won't eat without government.

 

[GAVol]

If you are going to propose the idea that all our kids should be educated, there is no way to accomplished without some sort of govt involvement.

The national dropout rate is about 25% and nearly double that for minorities. You really think it could be much worse without the federal government involved?

 

[Headed For Home]

The national dropout rate is about 25% and nearly double that for minorities. You really think it could be much worse without the federal government involved?

Yeah, I think a lot of children would have nothing to drop out of. I am not a fan of the outcome that our educational system is producing, however I do believe it is better than educational anarchy.

 

[Headed For Home]

I'd love some examples. I'm sure we can go back to the 19th century and find illiteracy, but doesn't mean it'd exist today without government.

You keep saying it won't happen without government involvement, but I still don't understand why. To me it's like saying kids won't eat without government.

Not even close to the same.

Why don't you explain how you see that the vast majority of kids can get an education without govt involvement at some level.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not even close to the same.

Why don't you explain how you see that the vast majority of kids can get an education without govt involvement at some level.

Well watching Sesame Street is educational and about as good as some are getting from government schools.

Education will be available to all because once government gets out of the way there will be a need for private entities to provide it, whether non-profit or for-profit. You are looking at the world as we know it. A world distorted by government.

 

[Headed For Home]

Well watching Sesame Street is educational and about as good as some are getting from government schools.

Education will be available to all because once government gets out of the way there will be a need for private entities to provide it, whether non-profit or for-profit. You are looking at the world as we know it. A world distorted by government.

So your answer to education is Sesame Street and somebody will show up?

 

[GAVol]

Yeah, I think a lot of children would have nothing to drop out of. I am not a fan of the outcome that our educational system is producing, however I do believe it is better than educational anarchy.

Do you think it has to be the federal govt though? Will you at least concede that decentralizing the function and handing it back to the states would be a step in the right direction?

 

[n_huffhines]

So your answer to education is Sesame Street and somebody will show up?

Basically. Nobody makes sure we have food to eat. It just shows up. It's called the free market.

Again, you need to stop looking at the world as we know it. Government getting out of the way will lead to educational innovation. Something we haven't had in over a century. What if we find out the best way for grades K-4 to learn is through quality TV programming that could be brought to your children daily at no cost to you? Maybe the best way for grades 5-8 to learn is through educational video games that can be played for free online.

How do you know adequate education will not be available for all?

 

[txbo]

Do you think it has to be the federal govt though? Will you at least concede that decentralizing the function and handing it back to the states would be a step in the right direction?

Definitely. Accountability is more effective from up close than from afar.

 

[Headed For Home]

Do you think it has to be the federal govt though? Will you at least concede that decentralizing the function and handing it back to the states would be a step in the right direction?

I am not opposed to that. I think that raises a lot of additional questions. Would there be federal minimum standards? Federal funding assistance? I would love to see some type of voucher system that would allow more participation from private schools. I just do not ever see a situation with no federal involvement.

 

[Headed For Home]

Basically. Nobody makes sure we have food to eat. It just shows up. It's called the free market.

Again, you need to stop looking at the world as we know it. Government getting out of the way will lead to educational innovation. Something we haven't had in over a century. What if we find out the best way for grades K-4 to learn is through quality TV programming that could be brought to your children daily at no cost to you? Maybe the best way for grades 5-8 to learn is through educational video games that can be played for free online.

How do you know adequate education will not be available for all?

That is way easier to foresee than a situation where it is.

 

[n_huffhines]

That is way easier to foresee than a situation where it is.

I agree. The scenario we can easily imagine or foresee in our mind's eye isn't necessarily any more likely to happen, though.

When we talk about ending the war on drugs, we foresee a society swamped by drug use. That's not what happened in Portugal or in Holland.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

I disagree. I think if there were no govt social programs then there would be much more charity. And there is already a lot of charity. I don't have statistics at hand, but I have read in many places that pre-govt-handouts there were very few people who starved to death in this country.

The large majority of people who are financially set enough to give to charity don't. They are stingy.

 

[RespectTradition]

The large majority of people who are financially set enough to give to charity don't. They are stingy.

A Nation of Givers — The American Magazine

Q. How much do the rich in America give, compared with everyone else?
A. In order for a person to give money away, he or she must have it in the first place. Not surprisingly then, income and charitable giving in America are positively related. For example, in the year 2000, families earning $20,000 or less gave an average of about $450 to charity, while families earning more than $100,000 gave away an average of a bit more than $3,000. The top 10 percent of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all charitable donations. The American rich are generous, on average.

Yet when we measure monetary giving as a percentage of income in order to ascertain the level of one’s “sacrifice,” we find a surprising result: it is low-income working families that are the most generous group in America, giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on average. This compares to about 2.5 percent among the middle class, and 3 percent among high-income families.

One common explanation for the fact that the working poor give so much is, not surprisingly, religion. The working poor tend to belong to congregations that are relatively literal about Biblical injunctions to give. Data from 2000 show that these poor American families were roughly twice as likely as middle-class families to be Seventh-Day Adventists, Pentecostals, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were also significantly less likely to belong to more “mainline”—and less stringent—denominations such as Episcopalian, Methodist, and Presbyterian.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The large majority of people who are financially set enough to give to charity don't. They are stingy.

If they truly are, why does it matter?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

If they truly are, why does it matter?

I'm just throwing stuff out there hoping it sticks. Though my original sentiments on the subject stand.