PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Why not a right to a college education?




TheBlackPeterSchiff
02-08-2012, 03:36 PM
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/my-view-why-not-a-right-to-a-college-education/comment-page-2/#comment-10166


What if, instead of proposing policies geared towards individual middle-class tax-payers that revolved around the assumption that higher education was an individual’s responsibility, the president instead proposed policies geared towards embedding higher education as an individual right. What if, instead of getting a tax write-off after you’ve already paid your son/daughter’s tuition, you instead didn’t have to worry about education because the government would pay for it?

It’s socialism!

It’s too expensive!

I want to take the socialism critique first. The reality is that even here we routinely spend a significant amount of our government’s resources on subsidies, on what tea party supporters might call “socialist policies.” For instance, in 2009 the government spent almost $86 billion on home ownership subsidies in the form of the mortgage interest deduction, subsidizing the home purchases of almost 35 million citizens. In 2010 the government spent almost $104 billion.

Furthermore, as the president noted in the State of the Union address, the federal government routinely spends billions of dollars in corporate subsidies, helping them research and develop new products, helping them build new plants, helping them train new workers. If we wouldn’t think of these policies as socialist, why should we necessarily consider a policy to pay for college tuition socialist?

Opinion piece by some socialist professor. Comments at the bottom are depressing.


I think it's a great idea. Think how it would reduce the amount of money for prisons, less people going to prison and employed. The tax base would probably go way up with more people being employed in high paying jobs and everyone would benefit. They do it in Europe. Why not here.


This is logical from a financial view point as well. The people with college educations will make more money, thus more taxes will be paid. This is one idea that the government should seriously look at. The only problem that I see with it is the devaluing of college educations. If everybody could go to college then a degree would not be worth as much. Even if that were the case, I feel that a highly educated society would be worth the cost, whatever it means.

AFPVet
02-08-2012, 03:50 PM
Duh... I have been talking about the problems with education inflation for awhile now. There is a reason why college is expensive... if everyone were given a free ride, it would devalue it further. If you have earned your GI Bill like I have, or have worked hard to save it up, then go. Right now, my bachelor's degree is worth about as much as an associate's. Twenty years ago, a bachelor's degree was akin to what we think of a master's today. Once you start education inflation, it only worsens. I don't even know many people going to school for a certificate or associate's degree anymore. In short, a bachelor's degree would be worth as much as an associates—which in turn, would be worth as much as a certificate—which in turn, would be akin to a high school diploma. Of course, it would just keep getting better :rolleyes:

Acala
02-08-2012, 03:53 PM
I want to be paid for not working. Since we are already paying some people for not working it must be okay to pay EVERYONE for not working. So that is what I want. And since more people will then have more money to spend and be taxed on, everyone will be more prosperous and the government will have more revenue. I am a damned genius!

Seth
02-08-2012, 06:12 PM
I want to be paid for not working. Since we are already paying some people for not working it must be okay to pay EVERYONE for not working. So that is what I want. And since more people will then have more money to spend and be taxed on, everyone will be more prosperous and the government will have more revenue. I am a damned genius!

What is the point of ANYONE working? The government should send us all $1 million per month. That way everyone would be rich and the government would get a ton of tax revenue!

Grubb556
02-08-2012, 07:04 PM
If we wouldn’t think of these policies as socialist, why should we necessarily consider a policy to pay for college tuition socialist?


But these polices are socialist !!!!! :mad:

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 08:45 PM
"it's socialism" "it's too expensive" are not excuses when it comes to protecting life and property, so why would it be excuses for denying, depriving or excluding a person's alleged right to education (or anything).

This is the question and problem you're always going to deal with if you grant "rights". There is no reason a person has a right to life but not health care, or property but not privacy, the lines are arbitrary, and if they are not arbitrary, they are either monetary or social constructs. So unless you're willing to use the excuses "it's socialism or it's too expensive" against protecting life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property, you can't use that as reason for why higher education, food stamps, health care and other entitlements are not also "rights".

There is no basis for "God gave me these rights, but not those other rights", rights have always been, and continue to be, social and government constructs. Please correct me if I got anything wrong.

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 08:46 PM
Duh... I have been talking about the problems with education inflation for awhile now. There is a reason why college is expensive... if everyone were given a free ride, it would devalue it further. If you have earned your GI Bill like I have, or have worked hard to save it up, then go. Right now, my bachelor's degree is worth about as much as an associate's. Twenty years ago, a bachelor's degree was akin to what we think of a master's today. Once you start education inflation, it only worsens. I don't even know many people going to school for a certificate or associate's degree anymore. In short, a bachelor's degree would be worth as much as an associates—which in turn, would be worth as much as a certificate—which in turn, would be akin to a high school diploma. Of course, it would just keep getting better :rolleyes:

Using this logic, if we stopped protecting life, life would be more valuable?

ghengis86
02-08-2012, 08:49 PM
if education is a right, who pays the professors? the state. where does the state get the money? the taxpayer. and if they refuse? the state puts them in jail or kills them if they refuse.

you don't have the right to OPP (other people's property)!!

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 08:51 PM
if education is a right, who pays the professors? the state. where does the state get the money? the taxpayer. and if they refuse? the state puts them in jail or kills them if they refuse.

you don't have the right to OPP (other people's property)!!

if life is a right, who pays police and lifeguards? Oh no, we can't have the state paying to protect a person from dying!
If I refuse to pay for police to protect life? I go to jail! OMFG, I never heard of such an outrageous proposal! (nah, its true of any civilized country)

You don't have a right to OPP, but who gets to decide what is OPP?

Jtorsella
02-08-2012, 08:52 PM
"it's socialism" "it's too expensive" are not excuses when it comes to protecting life and property, so why would it be excuses for denying, depriving or excluding a person's alleged right to education (or anything).

This is the question and problem you're always going to deal with if you grant "rights". There is no reason a person has a right to life but not health care, or property but not privacy, the lines are arbitrary, and if they are not arbitrary, they are either monetary or social constructs. So unless you're willing to use the excuses "it's socialism or it's too expensive" against protecting life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property, you can't use that as reason for why higher education, food stamps, health care and other entitlements are not also "rights".

There is no basis for "God gave me these rights, but not those other rights", rights have always been, and continue to be, social and government constructs. Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
Positive vs. negative rights. Very different beasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 08:59 PM
Positive vs. negative rights. Very different beasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I didn't see where it says how they are determined. I know what negative and positive rights are , but who and how decide what makes right a positive one? Is it the old "if you leave a person alone, that's all the negative rights they get"?

Jtorsella
02-08-2012, 09:05 PM
I didn't see where it says how they are determined. I know what negative and positive rights are , but who and how decide what makes right a positive one? Is it the old "if you leave a person alone, that's all the negative rights they get"?
Negative rights would exist if a person lived alone in a void. Or alone on an island. Positive rights are dependent on the compliance and interaction of others, and are therefore inferior and less dependable. They are also immoral, but let's not get into that here.

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 09:30 PM
Negative rights would exist if a person lived alone in a void. Or alone on an island. Positive rights are dependent on the compliance and interaction of others, and are therefore inferior and less dependable. They are also immoral, but let's not get into that here.

alone and in void means you won't have food or protection against harm.

Bosco Warden
02-08-2012, 09:36 PM
College education?

Hell, I would be happy with just a "good" education from K-12, none of this Hegelian Dialectic shit. Now that we live in a Global economy, and the US competes globally. It no big surprise Corporations are outsourcing.

Lishy
02-08-2012, 09:59 PM
I'd like to see the money being wasted on wars being used to fund our education instead.

Jtorsella
02-08-2012, 10:04 PM
alone and in void means you won't have food or protection against harm.
It's not a literal scenario, it was just used to illustrate a point. Negative rights are independent and exist without others. Positive rights cannot exist without others.
Also, stepping back, are you saying you support the right to college? Are you just trying to see the board's response, or do you actually believe that?

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 10:06 PM
It's not a literal scenario, it was just used to illustrate a point. Negative rights are independent and exist without others. Positive rights cannot exist without others.
Also, stepping back, are you saying you support the right to college? Are you just trying to see the board's response, or do you actually believe that?

No kidding, taking it literally would destroy your point. I think I can logically argue life cannot exist without cooperation of others, so no, I don't see a good reason they are distinct, other than convenience, monetary cost, and social construct. I am saying I don't support rights, or I can't give a good argument on how to select rights.

LibertasPraesidium
02-08-2012, 10:18 PM
Here is my basic problem. First and foremost I disagree that the government should do anything other than what the tenth amendment directly authorizes and I am FOR an amendment to make that list shorter.

Now on the right to college education, first the quality is completely in question because what would the incentive be for teachers to be good, who would write the curriculums? If it is a basic right, then would that be extended to illegals giving them more incentives. Continuing on, this seems to be distracting as some of us have already agreed that the government is incompetent in administering education from the Central Government.

I do not see how this can work without giving the government more power, not to mention that once it is a right, it can be revoked, and who would choose? Our current politicians? Some committee? What major would I "get" to pursue or would that be decided for me as well to increase the efficacy of administered education?

I can continue to raise questions, but I distrust government overall to do anything, and they haven't proven me wrong.

seapilot
02-08-2012, 10:47 PM
No kidding, taking it literally would destroy your point. I think I can logically argue life cannot exist without cooperation of others, so no, I don't see a good reason they are distinct, other than convenience, monetary cost, and social construct. I am saying I don't support rights, or I can't give a good argument on how to select rights.

Do you understand the law of natural rights?

http://www.americasyouthvsbiggovernment.com/the-untaught-law-of-natural-rights/

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2012, 10:53 PM
Duh... I have been talking about the problems with education inflation for awhile now. There is a reason why college is expensive... if everyone were given a free ride, it would devalue it further. If you have earned your GI Bill like I have, or have worked hard to save it up, then go. Right now, my bachelor's degree is worth about as much as an associate's. Twenty years ago, a bachelor's degree was akin to what we think of a master's today. Once you start education inflation, it only worsens. I don't even know many people going to school for a certificate or associate's degree anymore. In short, a bachelor's degree would be worth as much as an associates—which in turn, would be worth as much as a certificate—which in turn, would be akin to a high school diploma. Of course, it would just keep getting better :rolleyes:
This^^

onlyrp
02-08-2012, 11:05 PM
Do you understand the law of natural rights?

http://www.americasyouthvsbiggovernment.com/the-untaught-law-of-natural-rights/

I've heard it, but not convinced of it, so no, can't say I understand or agree with it.

"natural rights" is just a cop out for people who are unable to logically justify their claimed rights, there is no reason they can offer (that I am aware) of what the natural rights are and how they draw the line.

seapilot
02-08-2012, 11:41 PM
I've heard it, but not convinced of it, so no, can't say I understand or agree with it.

"natural rights" is just a cop out for people who are unable to logically justify their claimed rights, there is no reason they can offer (that I am aware) of what the natural rights are and how they draw the line.

Did you check out the link? If you did and still do not understand I can try to explain it in simple terms.

tttppp
02-09-2012, 12:18 AM
People don't have the rights to other people's property. Its as simple as that.

The government has already been involved in education, attempting to make it more affordable. All its done is make education completely unaffordable and make the service lousy. Making education a right and thereby making education pretty much government run will only make our education problems worse.

This is pretty much communism at its best. Let the state provide everything for you. What next, everyone have the right to an iphone? Lets make Apple state run too.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 12:30 AM
Did you check out the link? If you did and still do not understand I can try to explain it in simple terms.

Yes, I've read it and it sounds the same as the hundreds of times I've heard it in the past. So if you can explain it more simply, I appreciate it. Thanks.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 12:32 AM
People don't have the rights to other people's property. Its as simple as that.

The government has already been involved in education, attempting to make it more affordable. All its done is make education completely unaffordable and make the service lousy. Making education a right and thereby making education pretty much government run will only make our education problems worse.

This is pretty much communism at its best. Let the state provide everything for you. What next, everyone have the right to an iphone? Lets make Apple state run too.

would be nice if only we knew what was "other people's property" , wouldn't it?
the logical conclusion using the state to protect rights, is that any rights claimed thereafter is fair game, unless you have a logical stop line.
http://www.angrytownhall.com/

phill4paul
02-09-2012, 12:46 AM
Using this logic, if we stopped protecting life, life would be more valuable?

WTF are you on about? That was some serious loop-around-folderol.

Diurdi
02-09-2012, 12:54 AM
So when the government goes bust and can't provide everyone with college education, who is going to get charged the crime of not respecting their fellow man's right to college?

In case of infringement upon right to life for example, those that commit the crime are those who actively do harm against you. In the case of the right to college, simply inaction means that your human rights are being violated.

tttppp
02-09-2012, 01:31 AM
would be nice if only we knew what was "other people's property" , wouldn't it?
the logical conclusion using the state to protect rights, is that any rights claimed thereafter is fair game, unless you have a logical stop line.
http://www.angrytownhall.com/

People have a right to keep their wealth. They earned it, they can do what they want with it. People don't have the right to get education paid for by other people's wealth.

The government may provide a system where poor people can get assistance for education, but in no way does that mean they have a right to free education.

Seth
02-09-2012, 01:35 AM
if life is a right, who pays police and lifeguards? Oh no, we can't have the state paying to protect a person from dying!
If I refuse to pay for police to protect life? I go to jail! OMFG, I never heard of such an outrageous proposal! (nah, its true of any civilized country)

You don't have a right to OPP, but who gets to decide what is OPP?

You have a right to life. You don't have a right to police protection or lifeguards...

I believe all humans are equal. If we are truly equal then no man should have authority over another. No one should have the authority to use force on a fellow human. The right to life, liberty, and property do not require one man to use force against another man. In fact these rights protect a man from others using force on him. Any other "right", like the right to education or the right to healthcare requires the use of force. You cannot have a right to education without forcing someone to pay the bill.

I guess you could make the argument that we don't have a right to our life and all humans are not equal. If you come from that stance I doubt you will ever accept any rights.

tttppp
02-09-2012, 01:38 AM
There are tons of better ways to improve education than putting more government into education. They are basically suggesting throwing more money at the problem. Typical idea of the communist, I mean democratic party.

tttppp
02-09-2012, 01:40 AM
You have a right to life. You don't have a right to police protection or lifeguards...

I believe all humans are equal. If we are truly equal then no man should have authority over another. No one should have the authority to use force on a fellow human. The right to life, liberty, and property do not require one man to use force against another man. In fact these rights protect a man from others using force on him. Any other "right", like the right to education or the right to healthcare requires the use of force. You cannot have a right to education without forcing someone to pay the bill.

I guess you could make the argument that we don't have a right to our life and all humans are not equal. If you come from that stance I doubt you will ever accept any rights.

Instead of adding new bs rights like healthcare an education, why doesn't our government focus on protecting the rights we already have?

Seth
02-09-2012, 01:50 AM
Instead of adding new bs rights like healthcare an education, why doesn't our government focus on protecting the rights we already have?
Well government itself is force.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 01:53 AM
WTF are you on about? That was some serious loop-around-folderol.

the more you protect, the more you have, the more you have of something, the less valuable it becomes. Did I run into something that is an exception or exemption of market rules supply v demand?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 01:54 AM
So when the government goes bust and can't provide everyone with college education, who is going to get charged the crime of not respecting their fellows man right to college?

In case of infringement upon right to life for example, those that commit the crime are those who actively do harm against you. In the case of the right to college, simply inaction means that your human rights are being violated.

good question, so when police stations go bust. who is charged for failure to protect life? That must mean you have no right to life.

Seth
02-09-2012, 01:58 AM
good question, so when police stations go bust. who is charged for failure to protect life? That must mean you have no right to life.

I'm not sure how you are confusing the right to life with the right to police protection.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 01:58 AM
You have a right to life. You don't have a right to police protection or lifeguards...


you already lost me here.

Explain to me what the hell "right to life" means if it doesn't mean "you are entitled to somebody using force to protect your life".

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 01:59 AM
I'm not sure how you are confusing the right to life with the right to police protection.

I am not sure how you can separate them. Please tell me what "right to life" means.

Seth
02-09-2012, 02:05 AM
you already lost me here.

Explain to me what the hell "right to life" means if it doesn't mean "you are entitled to somebody using force to protect your life".

Your right to life is the whole reason murder is wrong. Can you give me a reason that murder is wrong other than it violates your right to life? Same reason theft is wrong because it violates your property rights.

tttppp
02-09-2012, 02:06 AM
Well government itself is force.

Whats your point?

Seth
02-09-2012, 02:08 AM
Whats your point?
That you expect something which violates your rights in the first place to protect your rights. :p

tttppp
02-09-2012, 02:14 AM
That you expect something which violates your rights in the first place to protect your rights. :p

You have to have some system in place to enforce your rights. It doesn't have to be a government like we have now. It could be a free market solution. But thats a different issue. The point is they are trying to add new "rights" which inherently violate people rights. Meanwhile laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA are violating our rights. They should stop the discussion of right to education and health care and focus on repealing the Patriot Act and NDAA.

phill4paul
02-09-2012, 02:42 AM
the more you protect, the more you have, the more you have of something, the less valuable it becomes. Did I run into something that is an exception or exemption of market rules supply v demand?

Ummhmm. That was just more folderol. Clarification and a solid stance in beliefs, pertinent to the thread, is something to consider. Care to oblige. Or is it better to be oblique?

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 03:43 AM
you already lost me here.

Explain to me what the hell "right to life" means if it doesn't mean "you are entitled to somebody using force to protect your life".
Right to life means your right not to be killed or harmed by others.

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 03:53 AM
No kidding, taking it literally would destroy your point. I think I can logically argue life cannot exist without cooperation of others, so no, I don't see a good reason they are distinct, other than convenience, monetary cost, and social construct. I am saying I don't support rights, or I can't give a good argument on how to select rights.
Seriously? I was not talking in literal terms, I already clarified that. Either you are just trying to score cheap points here or you actually do not understand rights. I'm not sure which is more sad. I'll reiterate again: negative rights exist independent of others. They are characteristics of the individual. It is impossible for a group to have negative rights. Positive rights are a social construct. They must be applied to groups. With negative rights, neither consent nor force is needed. With positive rights, either is necessary. Negative rights are individualistic. Positive rights are collectivistic, and while they are assigned to individuals, they need groups to work.
Also, aside, almost every single domestic policy of Ron Paul is based off of the natural rights. Just sayin.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2012, 04:50 AM
So who is going to supply the right of education, healthcare, and housing to Robinson Crusoe?

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 06:02 AM
No kidding, taking it literally would destroy your point. I think I can logically argue life cannot exist without cooperation of others, so no, I don't see a good reason they are distinct, other than convenience, monetary cost, and social construct. I am saying I don't support rights, or I can't give a good argument on how to select rights.

Interesting that you should use the word, "cooperation"; the word implies voluntary, mutual consent as opposed to forced or coerced participation. Individuals have a right to life because individuals are objectively, observably distinct and sovereign - no one else can think with my mind, nor feel with my heart, nor speak with my tongue. While it is true that life prospers with the cooperation of other individuals, it is not true that life in and of itself depends upon the cooperation of others (speaking simply, here, of course). To deny the sovereignty of other individuals is to deny one's own sovereignty, which is a logical paradox.

If life is objectively a right, then the fruits of one's life (property) is also a right. The exchange of property between sovereign individuals (and I've seen that you have a twitch when it comes to this phrase - understand, I'm using it to describe human interaction, not as some kind of political movement) must logically be on a basis of voluntary, mutual consent. Individuals have a right to request assistance on a matter (a college education, for instance) but they do not have a right to demand and confiscate property to that end. To deny the sovereignty of other individuals - to deny their right to life and the product of their lives - is to introduce violence and warfare into human society: since humans are observably equal in terms of their humanity (if not their abilities), adopting a philosophy which allows for an individual to take life and property tacitly allows for his own life and property to be taken (warfare).


if life is a right, who pays police and lifeguards? Oh no, we can't have the state paying to protect a person from dying!
If I refuse to pay for police to protect life? I go to jail! OMFG, I never heard of such an outrageous proposal! (nah, its true of any civilized country)

You don't have a right to OPP, but who gets to decide what is OPP?

Life is not protected by police and lifeguards. Those *should be* services available in a free society to enhance quality of life.


So when the government goes bust and can't provide everyone with college education, who is going to get charged the crime of not respecting their fellows man right to college?

In case of infringement upon right to life for example, those that commit the crime are those who actively do harm against you. In the case of the right to college, simply inaction means that your human rights are being violated.

Exactly. It is simple logic. There are "rights" and there are "goods". A right is inherent and applicable to all humans, at all times. If production of some kind is required of other human beings, it logically cannot be a right.

For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how this seems completely lost on other - most - people.

cindy25
02-09-2012, 06:12 AM
this is back door for mandatory National service.

Diurdi
02-09-2012, 06:46 AM
good question, so when police stations go bust. who is charged for failure to protect life? That must mean you have no right to life. I just made the distinction between the two, I guess you didn't catch it.

Lack of intervention does not violate anyone's right to life. Your right to life means that society can't take away your life, not that they must provide you with life. If your right to life is infringed upon, the infringer is the person that takes it away from you - not the person that fails to prevent it from being taken from you.

Lack of intervention violates a supposed "right to college". Your right to college means that society has to actively provide you with something. And if they can't, your right to college is infringed upon and the provider's inaction becomes the crime.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 10:52 AM
Ummhmm. That was just more folderol. Clarification and a solid stance in beliefs, pertinent to the thread, is something to consider. Care to oblige. Or is it better to be oblique?

this was in response to the original message "if everyone were given a free ride, it would devalue it further."

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 10:53 AM
I just made the distinction between the two, I guess you didn't catch it.

Lack of intervention does not violate anyone's right to life. Your right to life means that society can't take away your life, not that they must provide you with life. If your right to life is infringed upon, the infringer is the person that takes it away from you - not the person that fails to prevent it from being taken from you.

Lack of intervention violates a supposed "right to college". Your right to college means that society has to actively provide you with something. And if they can't, your right to college is infringed upon and the provider's inaction becomes the crime.

How is "society can't take it away" not the same as "they owe you protection against somebody who will try to take it away"

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 10:55 AM
Seriously? I was not talking in literal terms, I already clarified that. Either you are just trying to score cheap points here or you actually do not understand rights. I'm not sure which is more sad. I'll reiterate again: negative rights exist independent of others. They are characteristics of the individual. It is impossible for a group to have negative rights. Positive rights are a social construct. They must be applied to groups. With negative rights, neither consent nor force is needed. With positive rights, either is necessary. Negative rights are individualistic. Positive rights are collectivistic, and while they are assigned to individuals, they need groups to work.
Also, aside, almost every single domestic policy of Ron Paul is based off of the natural rights. Just sayin.

I'll say I actually don't understand it. What's an example of a negative right and how does it exist independent of others, explain that, and maybe I might understand it. Don't give me a stupid analogy and then say "I wasn't literal".

matt0611
02-09-2012, 12:41 PM
good question, so when police stations go bust. who is charged for failure to protect life? That must mean you have no right to life.

Negative. Just because a policeman isn't around, it doesn't take away your "right to life". You clearly don't understand the concept of rights.

idiom
02-09-2012, 01:10 PM
It only works if the government owns the universities.

bolil
02-09-2012, 01:21 PM
So instead of paying for your kid to go to college, you pay for everyone kids to go to college. This professor argues from the grounds that everyone feels taxation is okay, when in reality most of us see it as theft; especially under his utopian auspices. The government pays for it.... lets finish that statement... the government pays for it with your money. Don't even get us started on choice in education. Will the government allow us to CHOOSE which institutions we attend, or will everyone be forced to go to certain school that meet government criteria for the proper indoctrination...er... I mean accreditation. Fuck that guy.

Diurdi
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
How is "society can't take it away" not the same as "they owe you protection against somebody who will try to take it away" If I am murdered in my home, has anyone but the murderer infringed upon my right to life? No, ofcourse not. You can't say that the police infringed upon my right to life because they were not in my home protecting me.

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the distinction between positive and negative rights?

CaptainAmerica
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Socialism

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ySdetY6cMEo/S-rh6yvXDOI/AAAAAAAAAOg/wshQUHW2ZKY/s1600/FacepalmPrime.png

tttppp
02-09-2012, 01:31 PM
So instead of paying for your kid to go to college, you pay for everyone kids to go to college. This professor argues from the grounds that everyone feels taxation is okay, when in reality most of us see it as theft; especially under his utopian auspices. The government pays for it.... lets finish that statement... the government pays for it with your money. Don't even get us started on choice in education. Will the government allow us to CHOOSE which institutions we attend, or will everyone be forced to go to certain school that meet government criteria for the proper indoctrination...er... I mean accreditation. Fuck that guy.

College professors solution for everything is let the government create a solution for us. They are always in favor of big government solutions and have no real concept of free markets. I remember all of my accounting professors worshiping the new Sarbanes-Oxely Act thinking it would have prevented all the fraud thats ever to take place. I was the only one to tell them that its bullshit and it would never prevent any fraud and the only thing it would accomplish is make it more difficult to obtain capital. I then showed them a system that would have prevented fraud.

puppetmaster
02-09-2012, 01:33 PM
How about the right to keep the fruits of my labor?

Czolgosz
02-09-2012, 01:34 PM
I want to be paid for not working. Since we are already paying some people for not working it must be okay to pay EVERYONE for not working. So that is what I want. And since more people will then have more money to spend and be taxed on, everyone will be more prosperous and the government will have more revenue. I am a damned genius!

The logical conclusion. :D

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 03:34 PM
Negative. Just because a policeman isn't around, it doesn't take away your "right to life". You clearly don't understand the concept of rights.

I don't, and I'm still awaiting an explanation.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 03:36 PM
If I am murdered in my home, has anyone but the murderer infringed upon my right to life? No, ofcourse not. You can't say that the police infringed upon my right to life because they were not in my home protecting me.

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the distinction between positive and negative rights?

If nobody but the murderer has infringed on your rights, does that mean it's nobody's business to punish him either? Does anybody owe you a duty to prevent or punish the person who violates your rights? If not, what does it mean other than "I wish I had something, but if somebody's going to violate it, that's fine too"? What is the "that's not cool" consequence for violating rights?

I still don't see why they are distinct.

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 04:02 PM
I don't, and I'm still awaiting an explanation.


Interesting that you should use the word, "cooperation"; the word implies voluntary, mutual consent as opposed to forced or coerced participation. Individuals have a right to life because individuals are objectively, observably distinct and sovereign - no one else can think with my mind, nor feel with my heart, nor speak with my tongue. While it is true that life prospers with the cooperation of other individuals, it is not true that life in and of itself depends upon the cooperation of others (speaking simply, here, of course). To deny the sovereignty of other individuals is to deny one's own sovereignty, which is a logical paradox.

If life is objectively a right, then the fruits of one's life (property) is also a right. The exchange of property between sovereign individuals (and I've seen that you have a twitch when it comes to this phrase - understand, I'm using it to describe human interaction, not as some kind of political movement) must logically be on a basis of voluntary, mutual consent. Individuals have a right to request assistance on a matter (a college education, for instance) but they do not have a right to demand and confiscate property to that end. To deny the sovereignty of other individuals - to deny their right to life and the product of their lives - is to introduce violence and warfare into human society: since humans are observably equal in terms of their humanity (if not their abilities), adopting a philosophy which allows for an individual to take life and property tacitly allows for his own life and property to be taken (warfare).

//

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 04:04 PM
Please also see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 04:23 PM
//

YEAAH- but IF life is a right, you have not established that. Saying something a million times and telling me everybody agrees is not proving anything. So show how life is a right first.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 04:25 PM
Interesting that you invoked equality, egalitarianism is the foundarion for socialism of all kinds.

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 04:34 PM
YEAAH- but IF life is a right, you have not established that. Saying something a million times and telling me everybody agrees is not proving anything. So show how life is a right first.

I have not just "said a million times" that life is a right; I have offered my explanation of why I believe life is the right of a sovereign individual. I'm not going to do it again just because you're asking me to. If you have an objection to what I've said, make your objection.

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 04:35 PM
Interesting that you invoked equality, egalitarianism is the foundarion for socialism of all kinds.

No. Equality of humanity; not equality of ability.

idiom
02-09-2012, 04:37 PM
If people are equal why do they even need a college education?

They just want to be better than others.

Bastards.

LibertasPraesidium
02-09-2012, 04:47 PM
Life is an inherent right, because you exist. If you do not take responsibility for that life, someone else will and you will be come an indentured servant of whatever person or entity that has taken that right away from you.

In a free society, we force people to have a right to their own lives, forcing upon them responsibility to that life, until they give it away willingly. Now I know I used the word forced but in essence if one does not believe that existence is the only thing necessary to have a "right" to live then we are forcing it upon them by upholding these ideals.
At the same time, the person that refuses to accept their right to life, will end up as a slave because someone will take that right away and use them as their proxy.

If you wish to be free then accept it. If you wish to be in servitude I have some things I need done around my house, (cooking, cleaning, working) because this will better my life if you give me yourself to act as my proxy so I no longer have to work. I might feed you, clothe you, and even allow you to clean yourself up from time to time, but do not demand anything of me because you willingly refuse to take responsibility for your own existence.


if existence does not give the right to our own life simply because you exist, then how do we inherently gain that right? Is it more reasonable to have someone else claim their right to my life, or is it mine? If i do not accept my own existence, do I then reject my right to life as well?


...

Yieu
02-09-2012, 05:02 PM
I then showed them a system that would have prevented fraud.

Go on... sounds interesting.

The Free Hornet
02-09-2012, 05:18 PM
I've heard it, but not convinced of it, so no, can't say I understand or agree with it.

"natural rights" is just a cop out for people who are unable to logically justify their claimed rights, there is no reason they can offer (that I am aware) of what the natural rights are and how they draw the line.

In my opinion, you are wasting your time here and that of your readers. It might be OK to disagree with the doctrine of natural rights but to not understand it is inexcusable. You need to turn off the computer and start reading some books. Any books.

Diurdi
02-09-2012, 05:40 PM
If nobody but the murderer has infringed on your rights, does that mean it's nobody's business to punish him either? A person that infringes upon another persons right to life may be considered inept to function in society and thus his rights come into question.

The legal system is designed to solve these disputes. The legal system, law enforcement, the legislative and executive branch are all core parts of government. They are public goods, but they are different from other government run functions. Why? Because they are the government. Without them it can't exist.


I still don't see why they are distinct. One requires people to do something, other only requires people not to do something. I can respect a persons negative right regardless of place and condition. I cannot do that with a positive right. I can't fulfill a persons right to college on a deserted island, but I can respect his right to free speech or life.

bolil
02-09-2012, 06:02 PM
The murderer analogy brings up a good point. Local police forces are integral to a free society. Not what we have now where cops commute to torture citizens they don't have to see at church when they don't have their badge one. I don't understand why Murray Rothbard advocates private security companies instead of local citizen volunteer police forces. Anyways I am struggling with negative and positive rights too. It is a negative right of mine that others do not aggress against me? and a positive right of mine that I can speak my mind?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:04 PM
A person that infringes upon another persons right to life may be considered inept to function in society and thus his rights come into question.

The legal system is designed to solve these disputes. The legal system, law enforcement, the legislative and executive branch are all core parts of government. They are public goods, but they are different from other government run functions. Why? Because they are the government. Without them it can't exist.

One requires people to do something, other only requires people not to do something. I can respect a persons negative right regardless of place and condition. I cannot do that with a positive right. I can't fulfill a persons right to college on a deserted island, but I can respect his right to free speech or life.

how is that not saying that society ultimately decides what rights are enforced, protected, and for practical purposes, what rights even exist and are recognized?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:05 PM
The murderer analogy brings up a good point. Local police forces are integral to a free society. Not what we have now where cops commute to torture citizens they don't have to see at church when they don't have their badge one. I don't understand why Murray Rothbard advocates private security companies instead of local citizen volunteer police forces. Anyways I am struggling with negative and positive rights too. It is a negative right of mine that others do not aggress against me? and a positive right of mine that I can speak my mind?

because private security implies monetary compensation and Rothbard thinks money solves all problems.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:07 PM
One requires people to do something, other only requires people not to do something.

do we define crimes and achievements by action vs inaction?
Why are rights any different?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:09 PM
I have not just "said a million times" that life is a right; I have offered my explanation of why I believe life is the right of a sovereign individual. I'm not going to do it again just because you're asking me to. If you have an objection to what I've said, make your objection.

I disagree with your premise that to deny the sovereignty of somebody else, is to deny my own. To do so would assume in the first place, that all humans are equal, which is an egalitarian and communist concept. Therefore, I have no problem saying not all people are sovereign, or not the same degree, and there is no contradiction. You can ask me "who am I to say I am sovereign" and I can say "I don't care if you don't think I am".

heavenlyboy34
02-09-2012, 06:09 PM
because private security implies monetary compensation and Rothbard thinks money solves all problems. In a way, money does solve all problems. When we can use sound money, a lot of problems disappear. Will elaborate on this later if I have time.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:09 PM
No. Equality of humanity; not equality of ability.

what the hell does that mean? having 23 pairs of chromosomes?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:12 PM
if existence does not give the right to our own life simply because you exist, then how do we inherently gain that right? Is it more reasonable to have someone else claim their right to my life, or is it mine? If i do not accept my own existence, do I then reject my right to life as well?
...

Oh geez, if I can't convince you I am right, then how do I convince you I am right? Is it more reasonable to say Earthlings own the moon or lunar creatures do (it can't be both are neither!)? No, I don't think existence and right to life must co-exist.

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 06:21 PM
I disagree with your premise that to deny the sovereignty of somebody else, is to deny my own. To do so would assume in the first place, that all humans are equal, which is an egalitarian and communist concept. Therefore, I have no problem saying not all people are sovereign, or not the same degree, and there is no contradiction. You can ask me "who am I to say I am sovereign" and I can say "I don't care if you don't think I am".

No, it is not an egalitarian concept to recognize the obvious, just as the founders of this country did, that all men are created equal. They were elucidating a principle which seems to have escaped you: that there are no angels among men.

What you're expressing is the "might makes right" argument, and it fails - hard - hard as an order to society because, as we've seen time and again, someone is ALWAYS mightier. So you're welcome to deny that all men are equal in their humanity, and that you among men are more fit to rule. But you welcome violence and warfare into such a society in it's very foundation, and that is exactly what you will get. I'm suggesting an order to society based upon mutual, voluntary consent, out of respect for objective, observable universal truths.

Diurdi
02-09-2012, 06:25 PM
do we define crimes and achievements by action vs inaction?
Why are rights any different? Let me put it in easy to understand terms. Positive rights require others to provide you something. Negative rights only require others to leave you alone.

bolil
02-09-2012, 06:27 PM
that truth being we all are endowed by our creator(s) with liberty, and that is our first right all others stemming, directly, from it. That any aggressive infringement on that liberty is wrong and unjustifiable. Theft, rape, murder, and all crimes with victims being examples of aggression onto another persons liberty. That the only way to redeem mankind is to set him free? Nietzsche would smile on us if we actually realized liberty on earth I think. I would dig that society till I ran outta dirt. Or something.

bolil
02-09-2012, 06:28 PM
Let me put it in easy to understand terms. Positive rights require others to provide you something. Negative rights only require others to leave you alone.

Thank you for clarification. By leaving you alone don't others "provide" you with privacy? Do you have a good suggestion for literature involving this?

otherone
02-09-2012, 06:33 PM
Why is it not enough to say that we, as individuals, are sovereign as pertains to ourselves? Why is not enough to say that the state has no say in what our Rights are or are not? Why is it not enough to say that the people grant powers to government?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:49 PM
Why is it not enough to say that we, as individuals, are sovereign as pertains to ourselves? Why is not enough to say that the state has no say in what our Rights are or are not? Why is it not enough to say that the people grant powers to government?

you can, then you can't complain when you're violated, because you don't believe you are owed protection.

The Free Hornet
02-09-2012, 06:51 PM
because private security implies monetary compensation and Rothbard thinks money solves all problems.

-1. Can you provide a quote from Rothbard to support this? Also, private does not imply monetary compensation. State-run police are the best guarantee that monetary compensation will not only be required, but will become the driving motivator of the organization. From paid to police, to paid to supervise the police, to paid to oversee the supervisors, and - of course - all are rewarded with taxpayer guaranteed pensions to reward a lifetime of living off of the taxpayer.

Private security implies that your security is your job first and foremost. It is incumbant upon yourself to defend your life, liberty, and property. You can't lie down naked spread eagle and expect a good samaritan to prevent you from getting raped. In reality, it is your responsiblity to defend freedom. Those of us with a conscious may even defend the freedom of others. You might higher private guards or pay taxes for the police, and you would have heightened expectations of active protection. However, only one of those groups you can fire, cease payment, and sue to get your money back. Only one of those groups would have a contractual obligation to protect you. It is not the police. They owe you nothing and their paycheck does not depend on your continued survival.

I doubt Rothbard thinks money solves all problems. Rather, he knows that a state police force creates more problems than it solves and that it has a fundamental goal that is exclusive of your protection. "To serve and protect"? Don't let that fool you.

If you are looking for answers as to "How" rights are defended, you will not find them. How are houses built? You can study the principles but the solutions are endless. The point is not having one-size-fits-all solutions mandated from above while our ability to do for ourselves is stripped away.

otherone
02-09-2012, 06:52 PM
you can't complain when you're violated, because you don't believe you are owed protection.

such as?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 06:58 PM
such as?

being raped, robbed, murdered, is nobody's fault, because nobody owes you protection against it.

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:00 PM
How can anyone protect you from being raped or murdered?

awake
02-09-2012, 07:03 PM
Why isn't universal government college education a right? The same reason universal free car maintenance is foolish. It's a stupid idea painted as prudence and wisdom. We have an over abundance of "educated people", that seems to be the very problem. Every time there is a problem, their "higher education" kicks in and insists that government is the answer. Especially when it comes to getting the government to relieve them of their insane "investment" in their "education".

If higher education (debt-u-cation) was worth a damn, spouting Ron Paul's ideas would be like preaching to the choir.

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:07 PM
Why is universal government collage education a right?

RIGHTS ARE GOD GIVEN. Did God create college? Especially the liberal arts ones? It's like saying IPODS are a "Right". Does anyone even know what 'Rights' ARE, anymore?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:08 PM
How can anyone protect you from being raped or murdered?

my bad, I guess it never happened before.

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:10 PM
my bad, I guess it never happened before.


??????????????

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 07:12 PM
being raped, robbed, murdered, is nobody's fault, because nobody owes you protection against it.

Not even close...

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:25 PM
Not even close...

I'll rephrase, it's nobody but your own and the perpetrator's fault, because you are owed no protection.

A Son of Liberty
02-09-2012, 07:27 PM
Other than the perpetrator, who on earth else would you blame?!

tttppp
02-09-2012, 07:27 PM
Go on... sounds interesting.

There are basically 3 parts to the financial auditing system. And a fourth one I added recently.

1. Switch the results from net income to free cash flow.

Free cash flow is the companies' real earning power. Unlike net income which can be easily manipulated, if a company has a high free cash flow it is doing well. If you calculated the free cash flow for Enron and Global Crossing, you'd realize the company was going under. All this information was burried in the financial statements but nobody cared because they just looked at the net income.

2. Merge the tax system with the financial system.

Currently the tax returns and financial returns are separate. Companies in the current system can cheat both ways. They can report a higher net income than they have on their financial returns to boost their stock price. They can also report lower net income on the tax returns to pay less taxes.

If you merge the two systems, companies can only cheat one way and there would be consequences. If they report higher net income, they have to pay higher taxes. If they report lower net income, their stock price will be lower. Companies can only cheat so much in my system.

3. Grade the auditing companies

Grade audit companies based on several things such as the accuracy of the companies reported numbers and the simplicity and readability of the financial statements. By grading the auditors, they will be forced to compete to see who gets the most accurate numbers. So auditors will be forced to dig deep and invent new methods of detecting fraud and misstatements. Auditors will also have to compete to see who can make the most simple and easy to read statements.

By grading the audit companies, companies will want to get auditors with high score to boost the reliability of their numbers and to boost their stock price. This will motivate audit companies to get a high score. The audit companies with high scores will get the most clients and will be able to charge the higher fees.

4. Conditional tax rates (i just added this part recently)

Base every companies' tax rate on how well the companies benefit society. So bad companies pay really high taxes and great companies pay no taxes. For example, companies like McDonalds which sells crappy food that causes severe health problems in millions of people would pay a high tax. The wall street firms that continually screw people over would be paying a high tax. Companies which provide a good service with no side effects and do things such as charities which actually help people will not have to pay any taxes.

This system enables the government to eliminate almost all regulations in every industry. Instead of regulating companies, which costs a lot, and slows down growth. This conditional tax rate system actually provides value and at little cost.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:31 PM
Other than the perpetrator, who on earth else would you blame?!

ok, so where does "I have a right to life or not be raped" come in?

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:34 PM
Other than the perpetrator, who on earth else would you blame?!

It's onlyrp's opinion that it's the responsibility of the state to prevent personal loss.

The authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, Welfare, and morals of the community.

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state.


The problem, of course, is that no state can actually PREVENT loss. Even the hyper-police states (like the Soviet Union) could not 'prevent' rape or murder. Police states protect the state, not the people.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:35 PM
It's onlyrp's opinion that it's the responsibility of the state to prevent personal loss.


no, it's my opinion that "right" means "you are owed protection", otherwise I don't see how else you can use the word. And what it would entail.

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:38 PM
ok, so where does "I have a right to life or not be raped" come in?

The concept of "Rights" are only pertinent in contrast to "powers" of the state....."Rights" protect the individual from the government. Your neighbor can tell you to shut the eff up, and you can't complain that your 1st amendment Rights have been violated. Only the government can violate your Rights.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:41 PM
The concept of "Rights" are only pertinent in contrast to "powers" of the state....."Rights" protect the individual from the government. Your neighbor can tell you to shut the eff up, and you can't complain that your 1st amendment Rights have been violated. Only the government can violate your Rights.

so if my neighbor kicks my ass he isn't violating my rights?

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:49 PM
NO. He's assaulting you.


DUH

otherone
02-09-2012, 07:51 PM
RIGHTS ONLY PERTAIN TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE STATE.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:53 PM
NO. He's assaulting you.


DUH

complete sentence, is he or is he not violating my rights? Because somebody said "only the government can violate your rights"

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 07:54 PM
RIGHTS ONLY PERTAIN TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE STATE.

first time I heard it put this way, but thanks, I learned a new use of the word.

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 07:55 PM
RIGHTS ONLY PERTAIN TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE STATE.
Categorically untrue. Negative rights exist independent of a state.

otherone
02-09-2012, 08:00 PM
Categorically untrue. Negative rights exist independent of a state.

The Right to be left alone? FROM WHOM?

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 08:02 PM
The Right to be left alone? FROM WHOM?

I'll let you kids fight it out. You can't both be right.

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 08:08 PM
The Right to be left alone? FROM WHOM?
The right to life is still present in an anarchy. It may or may not be being violated, but it is still present.

rockerrockstar
02-09-2012, 08:12 PM
I don't think they should get free college because I had to pay for my college by working hard. I think it is unfair for people to get it for free. The more people that get degrees it devalues our degrees. We worked for our degrees and sometimes had extra jobs while going to school to pay for it. I payed my student loans after getting the degree for years.

I think college educations could be much cheaper if they just looked into ways to make things more cost effective. How about online college you would have little overhead because you don't need to pay for class rooms. You don't need to pay for sports. You could record the lectures and replay them via the internet. So you would need less staff.

Next, I would also suggest they look on removing usless classes form being required to earn a degree. It is a waste of time and money for the college students. The accreditation is part of the problem because they require a broad subject matter for college degrees. We should instead tailor the degrees to actually teach skills and courses that will help you get a job. The currently model is more for rich kids that want the classic broad range of courses but they really are not focused on getting jobs because they are rich. I am just saying we could focus our educations on usefull courses and save the students money and time.

Another thing to consider is that at one point in history college educations were not needed to get a decent job you could do that out of highschool. You also got more training on the job for people out of highschool to start work right away. We should consider building up programs for more internships or apprenticeships.

Kids should be taught vocational skills so that they can find a job if their high tech jobs are someday out sourced. You always will need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, welders, metal workers, mechanics, etc...l

Going to college it really takes a lot of time from the youth of people and maybe we should consider making their time more productive. How about stream lining college degrees and high school.

We should also consider creating more jobs that pay well that don't require college degrees. We should build up a broad based economy not one based totally on high tech workers like some politicians seen to think is our solution. As we have seen just because you have a degree does not guarantee a job.

Students should be taught about the expense of college versus the potential payoff in wages. They should be taught to do research about wages in their field of study before going to school and picking their degree. They should look in to how hard the job market is for that job and if the job is a stable job. These are all things colleges don't teach because all they care about is making money. They should consider these thing before picking the school they go to so they can figure out if it will be worth the risk of paying for the schooling. Considering school loans can't be liquidated in bankruptcy this is an issue. Most students don't know they can't get rid of the loans in bankruptcy too.

I think parents paying for their kids college educations is upping the price of college too. If all parents quit paying then the price would drop. I had to get student loans to pay for my college. I also worked summer jobs and some times worked while going to school.

otherone
02-09-2012, 08:16 PM
I'll let you kids fight it out. You can't both be right.

It's probably best that way. Asserting one's 'rights' after being assaulted is a FAR cry from asserting one's 'Right' to have a nanny state to protect one from assault. "Rights", God-given or not, are only germane to matters of jurisprudence. Outside of Law, whether you hit your neighbor with a rock or not is immaterial.

heavenlyboy34
02-09-2012, 08:19 PM
no, it's my opinion that "right" means "you are owed protection", otherwise I don't see how else you can use the word. And what it would entail.Courts in this country have ruled numerous times that police have no obligation to protect anyone. You are engaging in wishful thinking.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 08:33 PM
Courts in this country have ruled numerous times that police have no obligation to protect anyone. You are engaging in wishful thinking.

I'm not the one who believes in rights....

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 08:34 PM
It's probably best that way. Asserting one's 'rights' after being assaulted is a FAR cry from asserting one's 'Right' to have a nanny state to protect one from assault. "Rights", God-given or not, are only germane to matters of jurisprudence. Outside of Law, whether you hit your neighbor with a rock or not is immaterial.

if I understand you correctly, rights is a legal term and only makes sense in the context of politics and government? If not, I apologize and please correct me.

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 08:44 PM
It's probably best that way. Asserting one's 'rights' after being assaulted is a FAR cry from asserting one's 'Right' to have a nanny state to protect one from assault. "Rights", God-given or not, are only germane to matters of jurisprudence. Outside of Law, whether you hit your neighbor with a rock or not is immaterial.
So natural rights are not innate? They have no authority except with government? They have no moral meaning or backing? You sound a bit like those who say our rights come from government.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 08:46 PM
So natural rights are not innate? They have no authority except with government? They have no moral meaning or backing? You sound a bit like those who say our rights come from government.

I think that's pretty much what he is saying.

otherone
02-09-2012, 08:48 PM
A college education has nothing to do with morality outside of the state. Demanding a college education from the state is asserting that STATES GRANT RIGHTS. This is not a 'morality' forum, nor is it an 'anarchy' forum. This is a 'enforce the Constitution' forum. The 'mora'l right that should keep your neighbor from beating your brains in is only important in the context of the law. If you lived in a lawless world, and your neighbor assaults you, you would defend yourself, no? Are 'rights' important, here? Who cares if you use excessive force? Jebus?

tttppp
02-09-2012, 08:52 PM
I don't think they should get free college because I had to pay for my college by working hard. I think it is unfair for people to get it for free. The more people that get degrees it devalues our degrees. We worked for our degrees and sometimes had extra jobs while going to school to pay for it. I payed my student loans after getting the degree for years.

I think college educations could be much cheaper if they just looked into ways to make things more cost effective. How about online college you would have little overhead because you don't need to pay for class rooms. You don't need to pay for sports. You could record the lectures and replay them via the internet. So you would need less staff.

Next, I would also suggest they look on removing usless classes form being required to earn a degree. It is a waste of time and money for the college students. The accreditation is part of the problem because they require a broad subject matter for college degrees. We should instead tailor the degrees to actually teach skills and courses that will help you get a job. The currently model is more for rich kids that want the classic broad range of courses but they really are not focused on getting jobs because they are rich. I am just saying we could focus our educations on usefull courses and save the students money and time.

Another thing to consider is that at one point in history college educations were not needed to get a decent job you could do that out of highschool. You also got more training on the job for people out of highschool to start work right away. We should consider building up programs for more internships or apprenticeships.

Kids should be taught vocational skills so that they can find a job if their high tech jobs are someday out sourced. You always will need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, welders, metal workers, mechanics, etc...l

Going to college is really takes a lot of time from the youth of people and maybe we should consider making their time more productive. How about stream lining college degrees and high school.

We should also consider creating more jobs that pay well that don't require college degrees. We should build up a broad based economy not one based totally on high tech workers like some politicians seen to think is our solution. As we have seen just because you have a degree does not guarantee a job.

Students should be taught about the expense of college versus the potential payoff in wages. They should be taught to do research about wages in their field of study before going to school and picking their degree. They should look in to how hard the job market is for that job and if the job is a stable job. These are all things colleges don't teach because all they care about is making money. They should consider these thing before picking the school they go to so they can figure out if it will be worth the risk of paying for the schooling. Considering school loans can't be liquidated in bankruptcy this is an issue. Most students don't know they can't get rid of the loans in bankruptcy too.

I think parents paying for their kids college educations is upping the price of college too. If all parents quit paying then the price would drop. I had to get student loans to pay for my college. I also worked summer jobs and some times worked while going to school.

I agree with almost everything you said. I've been saying for years that the private sector could make a fortune converting colleges to online. They could have thousands of students per professor and by doing that save students thousands of dollars.

I totally agree with you on eliminating the bullshit classes. In most majors, students should be able to complete one major per year. If students are still required to go to school for 4 years, they should get 4 majors.

I had an idea for starting an online school years ago. One problem I ran into was that many of the professions have these bullshit standards that you have to go to a 4 year school, etc. So it can be difficult for a school to cut down on the time spent there.

I totally agree with you on streamlining college and high school. If high school and elementary schools structured their classes like college and covered similar amounts of material, students could be out of school completely and ready to join the work for by age 14.

otherone
02-09-2012, 08:53 PM
So natural rights are not innate? They have no authority except with government? They have no moral meaning or backing? You sound a bit like those who say our rights come from government.

NONSENSE. You do realize that the greatest threat to our Liberty is..........government? RIGHT?
When the Declaration was written, it was directed against....GOVERNMENT? Who takes away our weapons? OUR NEIGHBORS? Who throws us in jail for our opinions? OUR NEIGHBORS?

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 09:12 PM
NONSENSE. You do realize that the greatest threat to our Liberty is..........government? RIGHT?
When the Declaration was written, it was directed against....GOVERNMENT? Who takes away our weapons? OUR NEIGHBORS? Who throws us in jail for our opinions? OUR NEIGHBORS?
Those are exactly my viewpoints, and they are not compatible with a belief that rights come from government, which, judging from your posts, you believe.

otherone
02-09-2012, 09:17 PM
Those are exactly my viewpoints, and they are not compatible with a belief that rights come from government, which, judging from your posts, you believe.

Rights do not come from government. Where have I written this?

Jtorsella
02-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Rights do not come from government. Where have I written this?
Sorry if I got that wrong. I understand your position as being that rights need government in order to exist. Is this correct?

otherone
02-09-2012, 09:36 PM
Sorry if I got that wrong. I understand your position as being that rights need government in order to exist. Is this correct?

Conceptionally, yes. Any powers given to government are at the expense of the Rights of the Individual. In the absence of the State, Rights (legal rights, not moral rights) cease to exist....as the Rights of the individual are UNCHALLENGED. But Rights in defiance of the State are NOT Rights GRANTED by the State.

onlyrp
02-09-2012, 09:42 PM
Conceptionally, yes. Any powers given to government are at the expense of the Rights of the Individual. In the absence of the State, Rights (legal rights, not moral rights) cease to exist....as the Rights of the individual are UNCHALLENGED. But Rights in defiance of the State are NOT Rights GRANTED by the State.

sounds like we agree.

So, the right to college education can't exist without the state either, and can with the state, problem solved.

otherone
02-09-2012, 09:48 PM
sounds like we agree.

So, the right to college education can't exist without the state either, and can with the state, problem solved.

lol. Rights are not entitlements. We have no Right to food stamps. Rights aren't created by government. Are you a liberal?

TheBlackPeterSchiff
02-10-2012, 10:41 AM
Whoa! Talk about a thread jack!

A Son of Liberty
02-10-2012, 10:50 AM
I'm not the one who believes in rights....

That much is eminently clear. It also is clear that you either do not or refuse to understand what has been laid so clear before you. Rights as I have described them to you in this thread exist as a consequence of our humanity - they exist just as observably as we exist, with little more logical deduction than it takes to open one's eyes and see.

Look, "onlyrp", I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here... I've seen this line of argumentation before, and a professed supporter of Ron Paul, who understands the things Ron stands for, doesn't make it.

onlyrp
02-10-2012, 12:00 PM
That much is eminently clear. It also is clear that you either do not or refuse to understand what has been laid so clear before you. Rights as I have described them to you in this thread exist as a consequence of our humanity - they exist just as observably as we exist, with little more logical deduction than it takes to open one's eyes and see.

Look, "onlyrp", I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here... I've seen this line of argumentation before, and a professed supporter of Ron Paul, who understands the things Ron stands for, doesn't make it.

I don't see any rights that are the direct consequence of existing, at least none which we wouldn't admit inanimate objects or animals also have. Nor do I see what the rights entail, as in , what does it mean practically to have a right to life? Does it mean I am entitled to not being killed, or entitled to vengeance? If none, why not say all plants and animals have a right to life, since they too have no recourse when violated and it sounds nice to say you have a right to life even if it means nothing else?

A Son of Liberty
02-10-2012, 12:20 PM
I don't see any rights that are the direct consequence of existing, at least none which we wouldn't admit inanimate objects or animals also have. Nor do I see what the rights entail, as in , what does it mean practically to have a right to life? Does it mean I am entitled to not being killed, or entitled to vengeance? If none, why not say all plants and animals have a right to life, since they too have no recourse when violated and it sounds nice to say you have a right to life even if it means nothing else?

Reason separates man from beast and plant life. It doesn't take a Socrates or a Plato to differentiate between a sentient, rational being and a pig or a dandelion.

Such a being, in a world populated by other such beings, is entitled to a right to his life as a consequence of his individual sovereignty - no other human being can possess him physically, mentally, or otherwise. Yes, it is true that he may be coerced physically or intellectually, but to do so he who coerces must allow logically that a physical or mental superior may physically or intellectually coerce him. Perfectly legitimate in practical terms, but also a formula for the introduction of violence and warfare into human society. I advocate an order of society which denies the preemptive violence which you find tolerable, if not preferrable.

Cowlesy
02-10-2012, 12:30 PM
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/my-view-why-not-a-right-to-a-college-education/comment-page-2/#comment-10166



Opinion piece by some socialist professor. Comments at the bottom are depressing.

The question on its face is so ludicrous it is deserving of nothing less than pure ridicule.

onlyrp
02-10-2012, 12:49 PM
Reason separates man from beast and plant life. It doesn't take a Socrates or a Plato to differentiate between a sentient, rational being and a pig or a dandelion.


in other words, your rights exist only because you are rational and sentient, and if there was any human who was less, he has none?

A Son of Liberty
02-10-2012, 01:56 PM
in other words, your rights exist only because you are rational and sentient, and if there was any human who was less, he has none?

We see now that you are being purposefully obtuse; but for those who are reading the thread and have not yet caught onto your game, the rest of my post which you "ignored":


Such a being, in a world populated by other such beings, is entitled to a right to his life as a consequence of his individual sovereignty - no other human being can possess him physically, mentally, or otherwise. Yes, it is true that he may be coerced physically or intellectually, but to do so he who coerces must allow logically that a physical or mental superior may physically or intellectually coerce him. Perfectly legitimate in practical terms, but also a formula for the introduction of violence and warfare into human society. I advocate an order of society which denies the preemptive violence which you find tolerable, if not preferrable.

onlyrp
02-10-2012, 02:02 PM
We see now that you are being purposefully obtuse; but for those who are reading the thread and have not yet caught onto your game, the rest of my post which you "ignored":

I apologize I didn't see that part. So let's look at it.

"Such a being, in a world populated by other such beings, is entitled to a right to his life as a consequence of his individual sovereignty - no other human being can possess him physically, mentally, or otherwise."

Ok, so a person's right comes from his sovereignty, where does that come from? How is an animal or plant any less sovereign?

"to do so he who coerces must allow logically that a physical or mental superior may physically or intellectually coerce him" sure, why not and so what?

"Perfectly legitimate in practical terms, but also a formula for the introduction of violence and warfare into human society."
Not if you can get away with it or the sheep are brainwashed to believe they deserve it.

Diurdi
02-10-2012, 02:05 PM
Whether rights are "natural" or created by the government, the same logic of negative and positive rights still apply. To satisfy a positive right you must infringe upon a negative. A positive right is also dependent on a certain level of prosperity in society, while a negative right is not. Negative rights are alot more fundamental to society, to maintain order, set up rules and distinguish property, while positive rights are essentially just socialism.

A Son of Liberty
02-10-2012, 02:08 PM
Whether rights are "natural" or created by the government, the same logic of negative and positive rights still apply. To satisfy a poisitive right you must infringe upon a negative. A positive right is also dependent on a certain level of prosperity in society, while a negative right is not. Negative rights are alot more fundamental to society, to maintain order, set up rules and distinguish property, while positive rights are essentially just socialism.

+rep. That's the basic math.

A Son of Liberty
02-10-2012, 02:15 PM
I apologize I didn't see that part. So let's look at it.

Yeah. Sure...:


"Such a being, in a world populated by other such beings, is entitled to a right to his life as a consequence of his individual sovereignty - no other human being can possess him physically, mentally, or otherwise."

Ok, so a person's right comes from his sovereignty, where does that come from? How is an animal or plant any less sovereign?

The rest of my post:


Reason separates man from beast and plant life. It doesn't take a Socrates or a Plato to differentiate between a sentient, rational being and a pig or a dandelion.


"to do so he who coerces must allow logically that a physical or mental superior may physically or intellectually coerce him" sure, why not and so what?

"Perfectly legitimate in practical terms, but also a formula for the introduction of violence and warfare into human society."
Not if you can get away with it or the sheep are brainwashed to believe they deserve it.

Again, that is a perfectly legitimate end in practical terms, but I am advocating a more reasoned approach to human society. You're perfectly free to advocate the system of violence that you do; to be perfectly honest, you're more likely to succeed than I am, as has been borne out by history. But it seems to me that if we are proposing systems by which we organize society, we would all be best served in the end by a system founded upon reason and logic, and which recognizes fundamental, observable truths.

By the way, I just thought I'd point out that you're doing very poorly at that which you're here to do. ;) :lol:

acptulsa
02-10-2012, 08:04 PM
Well, the more government pays for it, the more it becomes propaganda.

Can't help but notice that the more government pays for it, the more we pay for it as well. Ever notice that? The more DARPA involvement, the more in the way of government programs to make it possible, the more expensive it becomes. So, we wind up calling for more government involvement so we can have it subsidized, the costs go up more because the government raises standards, and we wind up paying more--in both taxes and loans--to get the sheepskin.

The basic fallacies of the opinion piece are that government involvement doesn't make the education not worth having and that government subsidization actually brings the cost to the student down. But neither has practically and historically been the case.

As an academic, I would simply insist the guy who wrote the article prove the two hypotheses above. He can't...

Given that, the obvious way to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to get an education is to get government as far away from it as possible.

AFPVet
02-10-2012, 08:46 PM
Well, the more government pays for it, the more it becomes propaganda.

Can't help but notice that the more government pays for it, the more we pay for it as well. Ever notice that? The more DARPA involvement, the more in the way of government programs to make it possible, the more expensive it becomes. So, we wind up calling for more government involvement so we can have it subsidized, the costs go up more because the government raises standards, and we wind up paying more--in both taxes and loans--to get the sheepskin.

The basic fallacies of the opinion piece are that government involvement doesn't make the education not worth having and that government subsidization actually brings the cost to the student down. But neither has practically and historically been the case.

As an academic, I would simply insist the guy who wrote the article prove the two hypotheses above. He can't...

Given that, the obvious way to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to get an education is to get government as far away from it as possible.

Well said +rep.

AngryCanadian
02-10-2012, 09:08 PM
Yeah CNN what happens when college fails you?
Colleges are a waste of time and money and it put students in a lot of stress plus if you fail college the university wouldn't take u in so after all that applying.

And you would need to do some courses to prove to the university that you can handle the program and that you are serious about it.

So College is just so wasteful and worthless, i wasted 2 years of nothing and CNN is asking Why not a right to a college education?:rolleyes:

Cry me a river.
University is at a higher education standard then colleges, oh and Video game designers don't need colleges huh unless you want to waste time there.