Truancy Laws

[ClueLis]

Ok, so my last attempt at a philosophical debate fell flat. As a result, I'm trying a little bit less of a taboo topic:

Most people, including myself would definitely argue that at least some education is extremely useful in making people more productive members of society. But do we have the right to force such an education upon them? Can we legitimately argue that the befit of schooling is enough to justify the restriction of freedom that required attendance creates.

The biggest counter argument is that children are not fully developed and thus cannot make the decision for themselves, but what if the parents didn't want their child to attend?

On the other hand, an uneducated society could be disastrous to the security and stability of the nation as a whole, let alone the economy.

These are just some ideas I'll bounce off people. Have Fun!

 

[Xenon14]

Another pro argument could be that forcing kids to get an education doesn't put them in a negative position; they are not forced to use their education to better themselves but are provided the means to be more successful in their future if they so choose. Sorta like if you gave them $10 they don't have to spend that, but they can if they want to, as opposed to that $10 not being given to them at all. The problem is that it's someone else's $10, which brings me to my next point.

The bigger issue is not whether or not education is forced onto people, it's using tax money to provide education. Beside the fact that public education is laughable, even if it was ideal, you do not have the right to take other people's money for that education. Realistically, the tax argument applies to things beyond education. Essentially the tax argument follows that taxation is only justified if it is used to protect people's rights... police/army..etc, beyond that taxes is an abuse of governmetn as governmetn only exists to protect people's rights (right to property, life, freedom of speech..etc)... so any other interferance that governmnet undertakes is unjustified. (what i said is a gross oversimplification, but i'll assume you understand the logic behind it).

It could then be said that by providing education could result in the Ends that the society will be better off economically (as those socities that have a good educational system, do better economically). Yet, two things can be said in response to that: 1) Ends dont' justify the means (violating people's right to property to achieve a greater good). 2) What's more important than education is whether or not a country is capitlistic, the more capitalistic a country is, the more successful it is. (USA is the most capitalistic, hence the most successful - Yet even America has A LOT of gov. intervention... from economy such as fiscal and monetary intervention). So the more capatilistic a country is the more successful it will be - for instance, a community can make their own fund with their own money to provide kids with education.

I also understand that people will say "well what about kids that can't afford an education." Two things; in a purely capatilistic society that will be a very very small precentage since it's obviously a Utopia cannot exist - but moreso, those unfortunate people do not have any right to other's money even if it brings them more use. It would be like me saying that Bill Gates owes me $1 million since it will be more useful for me than for him, it's his money and that's that. What he has done, was donate on his own accord, $22 billion in charities... so it is still plausible to have "public" education from autonomous donations, not forced donations (taxes).

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
Another pro argument could be that forcing kids to get an education doesn't put them in a negative position; they are not forced to use their education to better themselves but are provided the means to be more successful in their future if they so choose. Sorta like if you gave them $10 they don't have to spend that, but they can if they want to, as opposed to that $10 not being given to them at all. The problem is that it's someone else's $10, which brings me to my next point.

Just the same, you are being required to go there and spend the better part of the day there. If you want to follow Nozick's reasoning (which you seem to below when discussing taxation), sending them to school could be equivalent eight hours of forced labor per day.

The bigger issue is not whether or not education is forced onto people, it's using tax money to provide education. Beside the fact that public education is laughable, even if it was ideal, you do not have the right to take other people's money for that education. Realistically, the tax argument applies to things beyond education. Essentially the tax argument follows that taxation is only justified if it is used to protect people's rights... police/army..etc, beyond that taxes is an abuse of governmetn as governmetn only exists to protect people's rights (right to property, life, freedom of speech..etc)... so any other interferance that governmnet undertakes is unjustified. (what i said is a gross oversimplification, but i'll assume you understand the logic behind it).

It could then be said that by providing education could result in the Ends that the society will be better off economically (as those socities that have a good educational system, do better economically). Yet, two things can be said in response to that: 1) Ends dont' justify the means (violating people's right to property to achieve a greater good). 2) What's more important than education is whether or not a country is capitlistic, the more capitalistic a country is, the more successful it is. (USA is the most capitalistic, hence the most successful - Yet even America has A LOT of gov. intervention... from economy such as fiscal and monetary intervention).

I disagree with you here, but then again I'm a Social Democrat. The opportunity for an education must be available to all, regardless of whether of not they take it. It is a restriction of liberty to be taxed for redistribution of wealth, but I feel that the benefit of certain social services far outweighs the relatively minor restriction. I would also consider a right to an education equal to property and freedom of speech, and not providing for schools would be on par with a violation of one of those.

I had a feeling that this might turn into a Libertarian/Socialist debate.

 

[ClueLis]

I also understand that people will say "well what about kids that can't afford an education." Two things; in a purely capatilistic society that will be a very very small precentage since it's obviously a Utopia cannot exist - but moreso, those unfortunate people do not have any right to other's money even if it brings them more use. It would be like me saying that Bill Gates owes me $1 million since it will be more useful for me than for him, it's his money and that's that. What he has done, was donate on his own accord, $22 billion in charities... so it is still plausible to have "public" education from autonomous donations, not forced donations (taxes).

I simply cannot believe that enough people would donate to keep vital systems afloat. Not only that, but if you reduce them to private charities, you lose a degree of efficiency you had earlier. Also, most Philanthropy goes to things like opera houses and museums, not feeding the homeless and giving scholarships.

Finally, I don't think it would be such a small percentage in a purely free-market society. Heck, the depression began in part because there wasn't sufficient regulation placed on many sectors of the economy.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: ClueLis

Originally posted by: Xenon14
Another pro argument could be that forcing kids to get an education doesn't put them in a negative position; they are not forced to use their education to better themselves but are provided the means to be more successful in their future if they so choose. Sorta like if you gave them $10 they don't have to spend that, but they can if they want to, as opposed to that $10 not being given to them at all. The problem is that it's someone else's $10, which brings me to my next point.

Just the same, you are being required to go there and spend the better part of the day there. If you want to follow Nozick's reasoning (which you seem to below when discussing taxation), sending them to school could be equivalent eight hours of forced labor per day.

The bigger issue is not whether or not education is forced onto people, it's using tax money to provide education. Beside the fact that public education is laughable, even if it was ideal, you do not have the right to take other people's money for that education. Realistically, the tax argument applies to things beyond education. Essentially the tax argument follows that taxation is only justified if it is used to protect people's rights... police/army..etc, beyond that taxes is an abuse of governmetn as governmetn only exists to protect people's rights (right to property, life, freedom of speech..etc)... so any other interferance that governmnet undertakes is unjustified. (what i said is a gross oversimplification, but i'll assume you understand the logic behind it).

It could then be said that by providing education could result in the Ends that the society will be better off economically (as those socities that have a good educational system, do better economically). Yet, two things can be said in response to that: 1) Ends dont' justify the means (violating people's right to property to achieve a greater good). 2) What's more important than education is whether or not a country is capitlistic, the more capitalistic a country is, the more successful it is. (USA is the most capitalistic, hence the most successful - Yet even America has A LOT of gov. intervention... from economy such as fiscal and monetary intervention).

I disagree with you here, but then again I'm a Social Democrat. The opportunity for an education must be available to all, regardless of whether of not they take it. It is a restriction of liberty to be taxed for redistribution of wealth, but I feel that the benefit of certain social services far outweighs the relatively minor restriction. I would also consider a right to an education equal to property and freedom of speech, and not providing for schools would be on par with a violation of one of those.

I had a feeling that this might turn into a Libertarian/Socialist debate.

LOL, yeah but its very nature this is a socialist/libertarian debate. But here's the thing... you state that you feel that education is equal to property and freedom of speech. My problem is not in the fact that you want to provide education to all, but rather that you are infringing on rights to do so. Rights cannot be compromised for other rights. For instance, you cannot protect my right to life by putting me in a cell with food and medicine so as to protect me from outside threats; by doing that you infringe on my autonomy and the only time autonomy can be infringed upon is if you have violated someone else's autonomy... i.e. I can swing my arms until my arms hit you, at that point I violated your right not to be hit and the government can then step in and limit my right to swing my arms b/c I have violated your right in the process. Similarly, public education has to be taken away at the point it violates other people's rights... i.e. their right to property.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: ClueLis

I also understand that people will say "well what about kids that can't afford an education." Two things; in a purely capatilistic society that will be a very very small precentage since it's obviously a Utopia cannot exist - but moreso, those unfortunate people do not have any right to other's money even if it brings them more use. It would be like me saying that Bill Gates owes me $1 million since it will be more useful for me than for him, it's his money and that's that. What he has done, was donate on his own accord, $22 billion in charities... so it is still plausible to have "public" education from autonomous donations, not forced donations (taxes).

I simply cannot believe that enough people would donate to keep vital systems afloat. Not only that, but if you reduce them to private charities, you lose a degree of efficiency you had earlier. Also, most Philanthropy goes to things like opera houses and museums, not feeding the homeless and giving scholarships.

Finally, I don't think it would be such a small percentage in a purely free-market society. Heck, the depression began in part because there wasn't sufficient regulation placed on many sectors of the economy.

I wasn't trying to say that defintively donations would keep the public education system afloat, in fact, that probably not likely (even though theoretically it can be with very low lower class, which is a consequence of capitalistic society, but I cannot prove that definitively, as such a system has never been implemented).

You state that I will lose efficiency. I will respond by saying that, even if ALL money goes to non-educational causes, that's up to the person who's donating the money... it's his money and he can do with it what he wants (so long as he doesn't violate anyone else's rights in the process as was my stipulation earlier). And as for the depression, it was a very natural process in a booming capatilistic economy. Every country that converts or starts capitalism undergoes depression, moreover, what government intervention does is make the rich poorer and the poor richer. What laissez-fair capitalism does is make the rich richer and consequently the poor richer (more jobs created, etc). In the second scenerio everyone benefits, in the first people benefit at other's people's expense. Socialist mentality is inherently unjustified b/c it requires the sacrifice of someone for the benefit of the other, under a socialist point of view, individual rights are not valued. Government regulation not only curbs downturns in economy it curbs upturns too, but overall government intervention is not justified b/c it violates rights regardless of the (benefits/costs analysis).

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
LOL, yeah but its very nature this is a socialist/libertarian debate. But here's the thing... you state that you feel that education is equal to property and freedom of speech. My problem is not in the fact that you want to provide education to all, but rather that you are infringing on rights to do so. Rights cannot be compromised for other rights. For instance, you cannot protect my right to life by putting me in a cell with food and medicine so as to protect me from outside threats; by doing that you infringe on my autonomy and the only time autonomy can be infringed upon is if you have violated someone else's autonomy... i.e. I can swing my arms until my arms hit you, at that point I violated your right not to be hit and the government can then step in and limit my right to swing my arms b/c I have violated your right in the process. Similarly, public education has to be taken away at the point it violates other people's rights... i.e. their right to property.

You are inevitably, however, compromising some rights for others. The government restricts my right to kill you (not that I would ) in order to protect your right to life. You can only make a judgement on the degree of the rights you are limiting.

At the end here, though, you again state that property right trumps all. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, but one I disagree with. The distinction that you try to make here is that laws protecting property and life prevent harmful actions, while education is a "service". However, the law enforcement required to maintain the above mentioned rights makes them every bit as much a service as education.

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
What laissez-fair capitalism does is make the rich richer and consequently the poor richer (more jobs created, etc). In the second scenerio everyone benefits, in the first people benefit at other's people's expense.

This is not necessarily true. They would by no means necessarily place their own money back into the economy, as they could just as easily pocket the money. In fact, what could happen is that they become the government, autocratically deciding where to hand off money to their potential underlings and gaining dangerous amounts of power with it.

Edit: I'm somewhat surprised and extremely pleased that this debate has stayed rational and not turned into a flame war.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: ClueLis

Originally posted by: Xenon14
LOL, yeah but its very nature this is a socialist/libertarian debate. But here's the thing... you state that you feel that education is equal to property and freedom of speech. My problem is not in the fact that you want to provide education to all, but rather that you are infringing on rights to do so. Rights cannot be compromised for other rights. For instance, you cannot protect my right to life by putting me in a cell with food and medicine so as to protect me from outside threats; by doing that you infringe on my autonomy and the only time autonomy can be infringed upon is if you have violated someone else's autonomy... i.e. I can swing my arms until my arms hit you, at that point I violated your right not to be hit and the government can then step in and limit my right to swing my arms b/c I have violated your right in the process. Similarly, public education has to be taken away at the point it violates other people's rights... i.e. their right to property.

You are inevitably, however, compromising some rights for others. The government restricts my right to kill you (not that I would ) in order to protect your right to life. You can only make a judgement on the degree of the rights you are limiting.

At the end here, though, you again state that property right trumps all. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, but one I disagree with. The distinction that you try to make here is that laws protecting property and life prevent harmful actions, while education is a "service". However, the law enforcement required to maintain the above mentioned rights makes them every bit as much a service as education.

I don't exactly catch the distinction you are trying to make, but from what I can gather here's my response - a police officer protects rights and is therefore a justified end of tax implemention, but no one has a "right" to an education... or rather, you have a right to an education just like you have a right to exercise or eat pudding, but you do no thave a right to education at the expense of someone else's right. The distinction I forgot to point out is that the police force exists to protect all rights, other rights. Without a police, rights in general cannot be protected so all other rights will be meaningless b/c we will exist in a state of nature where everyone is for themselves. Education, although it may be deemed as a positive attribute to society, it does not provide for the people paying the taxes. A police force has a positive externality of protecting those that do not pay taxes, but that is an inevitable consequence of protecting rights. Education does not do that, it simply provides for a service for a certain group of people, at other people's expense.

 

[Xenon14]

ClueLis: Aside from the debate - I have finals, so I have to go study, although I must admit this is a lot more interesting. In either case, I'll get back to your comments in a day or two, but I must go for now. Take care.

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
I don't exactly catch the distinction you are trying to make, but from what I can gather here's my response - a police officer protects rights and is therefore a justified end of tax implemention, but no one has a "right" to an education... or rather, you have a right to an education just like you have a right to exercise or eat pudding, but you do no thave a right to education at the expense of someone else's right. The distinction I forgot to point out is that the police force exists to protect all rights, other rights. Without a police, rights in general cannot be protected so all other rights will be meaningless b/c we will exist in a state of nature where everyone is for themselves. Education, although it may be deemed as a positive attribute to society, it does not provide for the people paying the taxes. A police force has a positive externality of protecting those that do not pay taxes, but that is an inevitable consequence of protecting rights. Education does not do that, it simply provides for a service for a certain group of people, at other people's expense.

The distinction that I was trying to make is that the government unst take action to protect your right to life, and that it as a result acts as a service the way anything else--including education--does and isn't a matter of noninterference at all. It is them the importance of the relative laws that are important.

This brings me back to my earlier distinction. I had mentioned that I do view education as a right. The ability to fully comprehend the world around you is as valuable as my right to own something, and in fact may ultimately contribute to my property rights and my right to life.

You comment that public education is something that not everyone benefits from is an interesting one, but a case could even be made for the same thing in protecting your life and property.

Let's say I'm fed up with what I see as the ineffectiveness of the police and decide to hire my own police force. I no longer need the public police, and thus do not benefit from their protection, although they are there as backup if, say, my body guards are all killed off by potential assassins, because I am still paying for their upkeep.

ClueLis: Aside from the debate - I have finals, so I have to go study, although I must admit this is a lot more interesting. In either case, I'll get back to your comments in a day or two, but I must go for now. Take care.

Ok. I've enjoyed talking.

BTW, what is your major?

 

[boran]

hehe, well, lemme take my socialist belgium as example, and just sketch teh situation, then you can say whatever you think about it:

average income: around 1500 Euro's netto (2500 Euro's bruto)
so approx 40 % of the income is already gone before u have it.
taxes, 21% for moost goods, 6% for essential goods (food),
and then if you build 6 or 21 depending on yer income.

so in total you loose another 20% there (a good is quickly vieuwe ads being non-essential and taxed 21 so yer average taxation will be 20%)
so of yer total wage of 1500 Euro's 1200 Euro's remain as actual spending on the goods towards the salesppls (they give their received taxes trough to their suppliers, and those to theirs, until finally the last in the chain gives it to the gouvernment.)

so income comes from 2500 to 1200 so 52% of yer income goes to the state.

that's the "bad" side.
now lets get to the good side.


income:
minimum wage is approx 400 Euro's might nog seem much, but a whole lot of goods get supplied to you with only 6% taxation upon them (special shops only accessible for these ppls, mainly in very poor neighberhoods)
now that wage is for doing nothing, nothing at all eh, you're just here, and you live here. (this wage is mainly paid by the 52% coming out of everybody else's wage)

unemployment fare is about ? 200 higher, with somewhat less access to reduced tax shops. the actual amount more depends on yer previous wage and time of employment. there r conditions with this extra, and you must actively search work, and may not refuse new job offers if they fit your capacities. (if you break these conditions you fall back to the minimum wage) (this is paid for partially by large work demanding companies, since they pay for schooling of uneducated unemployed, and the 52% from everybody else's wage)

child support is respectively 75, 150, 250, etc, euro's (for 1,2,3 childs, dunno bout higher numbers, but increases somewhat exponantially, the more kids u have the more u get for each kid). (same 52% funding this one)

pensions depend on yer monthly wage before you retired, and are approx around 1000 Euro's

education:
free in all public schools, except special events, such as excursions etc, but these R mostly covered by the school for the really poor ppls. unlike other places, the level of education lies the highest in public schools instead of private schools. private schools are mostly for ppls that want their kids to have a religious education (most private schools R katholic).
unlike france we dont really have problems with muslim fundamentalism on our public schools and ppls have a choise to follow either none, zedenleer (not really religion, more debating on current political and religious matters), katholicism, islam. there R some schools where there is enough demand (approx 10 ppls or more) to also give other religions (hindi for one)
the funding for these schools offcourse comes from that 52% everybody loses on his paycheque.

the law dictates that everybody below 18 is forced to take a form of education (a private teacher is also a form of education) and later you can be forced into taking extra education or loose yer unemployment bonus.

higher education:
somewhat less free, you pay about 300 to 400 Euro's a year, depending on course, and then you have to manage to fund yer books, however, depending on yer income you might get a tuition fund, which also lowers the entry fee to 124 or 60 (for the absolute lowest incomes) and a monthly wage of up to 600 Euro's (depending on how much you actually have to pay for yerself, this wage offcourse comes from that 52 %


healthcare:
free for the lowest wages (depends on family income, not personal income) about 10% of the real cost for everybody else. (state pays most of the costs back to you, going from 75% for simple things like getting the doctor over to 90% for braces if they are needed (less if they're purely cosmetic) and offcourse the money is from that 52%)

also, when your sickness interrupts your work, you get paid yer monthly wage, full the first month, 90% second, 80% third, etc, till 60% and it stays at that for the rest of the duration. unless the 60% is lower than 600

(if you'd like info bout other subjects just ask)

the income taxation also goes by the rule, the more you aren the more the state gets, someone earning only 1500 bruto will get about 1100 euro netto (1000 euro difference bruto, only 400 euro diff neto (not taking the taxation into account))

and the minimum wages also depend on family income, someone without an income and never been employed, but living with a husband earning over 3000 euro's netto each month will not get much, if at all.

but a family with two ppls both never employed and with three kids would get about 1050 euro's every month (still a close call to manage the budget if you know half of they will get spent on rent, gas, water and electricity) but they would also most likly get a social living place (most of the time appartments, for a VERY low rent, like 100 euro's/month or so) and get education offered, and get learnt how to deal with money effectively etc,

I think this system is quite near utopia, but there has to be a social acceptance that the state takes 52% of yer money, but you need to realise the bigger picture, and what kind of services you get back for that 52%

offcourse there R holes innit, there R ppls who are illegal in the country, and have thus no claim on those 400 Euro's minimum wage. they mainly dont want to ask asile (as soon as they do they get that 400 and support) because they want to get to the UK, or are not informed of their situation here (on purpose or not, depends)

(if any belgian ppls read this and say, no way, that's wrong, pls inform me, my numbers R from 2001 so might be outdated)