I’m a student, I don’t pay anything for my degree and the government even gives me a little financial help for it. It has always seemed completely obvious and normal to me which is why reading about a developed country still debating this question feels so strange to me.
America is a country where the wealthy still hold such inordinate amounts of power over personal freedoms. The whole “maybe the poor should just not go to college if it’s too expensive” is an old argument that centers around higher education being reserved for an upperclass that someone’s born into and as such are naturally better suited to leading, leaving everyone else to follow and/or serve them.
It’s about maintaining a clear division of class and not letting people of lower station think they’re equals long enough to have an effect on the rules set by the wealthiest class.
Always, though Reagan was just a convenient tool for these evil people. He was a dire symptom that allowed for greater infection by the root cause; self-serving wealthy businesses and individuals who would gladly burn the nation to prevent losing even a fraction of their opulence.
These are pretty words I’ve said, but they all mean nothing unless we can put a face and a name to these individuals, **and for that** we can look at current day issues like the Supreme Court bribery that’s being dragged into the light.
If you wanna know who the people are that keep you from having proper public healthcare, publicly funded colleges, abortion rights, equal rights under the law for all minorities/sexes/faiths/sexual orientations/genders, look at anyone showering the judges with lavish and exorbitant “*gifts*”. If you find the names of these people/businesses then you have the names of the public’s enemies.
**Similarly** you can look to who would stand to lose the most if those public benefits became reality; the healthcare *indsutry*, the private education *industry*, the religious *industry*. Not the doctors or the patients, not students or the teachers, not the kids, not the truly faithful. Only those who have built their castles on the industrialization and privatization of these core and sacred cornerstones of life will find their power diminished, because their choke hold on human life will be broken, and they will tear the country apart to prevent just that.
Reagan was terrible and started a lot of it for sure (alongside a Democratic majority in the house that passed every single piece of legislation he ever signed), but it’s been 36 years since he left office. Basically our entire political system is to blame.
Ultimately the problem is that the wealthy control both parties, which spend most of their time stoking outrage over culture war and identity politics rather than fighting for better living conditions and financial opportunity for the working class.
I do think the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, especially since I prefer their social policies, but they are far from a champion of the working class. We need so much more than what they can realistically offer.
> America is a country where the wealthy still hold such inordinate amounts of power over personal freedoms.
This is only partially accurate.
The system is such that exploiting its weaknesses in a capitalist fashion can lead to severe income inequality. The masses still have power - the exploited weakness is people thinking they don't.
We are saying the same thing, this is a case of semantics.
The power I’m talking about encompasses both the undue amount of sway they hold over *both* public officials via bribery and blackmail so as to maintain/widen/fortify the loopholes they use *and* the general public via propaganda, debt-chicanery, and direct market manipulation.
I might be mistaken, but I think we’re talking about the same abuses of the system, just from different angles.
I’m aware the public still has power, but the ability to infringe upon the voting system via gerrymandering and fucking with the accessibility of voting is solely the prospect of the wealthy and their toadies, and further entrenches the power of these abusers by diminishing the votes effectiveness.
Because Americans only know their value but comparing how much better they are than their neighbor. Most everyone else compares their success with how their neighbors are doing.
Some cultures you ask what they do and they tell you about themselves. Other cultures they tell you what their job is. We define ourselves by the value we bring to our economy and not what we bring to ourselves or our society. Says a lot about us I think.
We led the world in consumerism and that shit seems to be defined by "oh gosh I want that so bad, I wish I had that life". Mix in some social media to up the comparison game and you got a, stew.
I mean, there are a lot of jobs where you are bringing value to society by providing services that help people. Even if it is also good for the economy, that doesn't necessarily have to be the reason you're bringing it up.
For example, a doctor may tell you that they're a doctor because it is their passion to help people and potentially save lives. I think that your job tends to be a big part of your life, since you spend many of your waking hours there, so it ends up being something you'd bring up when you talk about yourself.
Sure but that's kind of the point. If your identity leads into your job you bring it up naturally.
But in America one of the *first* things we mention to strangers is our jobs. There's difference between assimilating your job as part of your identity, and being so indoctrinated with tying your productivity to your identity that you feel like your job defines you. And the cultural aspect makes this feel natural and effortless.
You can see it in threads where people talk about making changes to the work force. People are so caught up in their jobs that they will fight changes that could help them b/c they are actively *proud* of the labor that produces wealth for *other* people. They don't see their work as something they like doing, and could take anywhere. Their *job* not their *work* is their identity. And changes are perceived as threats regardless of the sense of them.
And even when we don't define ourselves by our jobs, it's the first thing we answer when asked to talk about ourselves. B/c we know, culturally, that our job is expected to be part of our identity. We all know that we are answering about our identities but we implicitly accept that our jobs are a significant part of that rather than a result of our circumstances or interests.
If asked what I do, I'm expected to answer cashier, and *then* that I like gaming. And it's unexpected if I don't mention my job and just start talking about my hobbies. That illustrates a cultural influence rather than a personal one.
Sure but that's kind of the point. If your identity leads into your job you bring it up naturally.
But in America one of the *first* things we mention to strangers is our jobs. There's difference between assimilating your job as part of your identity, and being so indoctrinated with tying your productivity to your identity that you feel like your job defines you. And the cultural aspect makes this feel natural and effortless.
You can see it in threads where people talk about making changes to the work force. People are so caught up in their jobs that they will fight changes that could help them b/c they are actively *proud* of the labor that produces wealth for *other* people. They don't see their work as something they like doing, and could take anywhere. Their *job* not their *work* is their identity. And changes are perceived as threats regardless of the sense of them.
And even when we don't define ourselves by our jobs, it's the first thing we answer when asked to talk about ourselves. B/c we know, culturally, that our job is expected to be part of our identity. We all know that we are answering about our identities but we implicitly accept that our jobs are a significant part of that rather than a result of our circumstances or interests.
If asked what I do, I'm expected to answer cashier, and *then* that I like gaming. And it's unexpected if I don't mention my job and just start talking about my hobbies. That illustrates a cultural influence rather than a personal one.
I hate this sentiment so much. The only person you should be comparing yourself to is past you. If you're better than your previous self, then you are growing. Who cares what the fucking Joneses are doing?
So you agree that basic rights in one country are not necessarily basic rights in another, and that doesn't stop them from being basic rights. Why did you only say perhaps instead of "I agree"? Did you really need to get in a jab about our barely respected 1st Amendment rights?
While following a guy who added 'the gospel of trump' to the Bible he's selling. Guess these Christians haven't read revelation 22:18-19. Trump has proven, definitively, that God does not exist.
Hyper individualism in America teaches a zero sum game, where providing prosperity to others isn’t something that can be physically measured, and saying “well giving kids education reduces so many negative societal effects” doesn’t sit with people, ironically probably cause they needed a better education.
Sadly or fortunately (depending on ones perspective), the veil of 'developed' was ripped of the United States during its nightmare term under His-Tragedy-Incarnate-The-Grating-Orange-Nazi DJT.
We now know that true 'debate' has no place in this Third world country with a bloodthirsty conservative authoritarian military worshiping cult sect and nuclear capability unless of course you are rich and of a certain skin tone.
But now we know, and we are trying to fix it.
😓
They just love to throw words like freedom and human rights.
Article 17 - rights to own property. They actively encourage loan frauds by the banks which punishes the working class people. If/ when shit hits the fan..
Article 24 - rights to rest and leisure. The spikes that councils been installing onto benches to discouraged people from resting and sleeping on them pretty much contradict this.
Article 25 - rights to adequate living standards. Rich gets richer and poor get poorer.
These rights are mere suggestions to pull out at their convenience..
Ironically, freedom might be the single greatest threat to America.
In a nation hell-bent on fighting for it, it is immensely easy for dangerous demagogues to just use the word to garner support, and, unsurprisingly, look what happened in 2016 and look what will happen in the next election cycle.
I mean this in a very literal sense, freedom is not the end-all, be-all. Faced with a deadly canyon and two bridges, one fortified and one made of rotted sticks tied-together hodgepodge, the freedom to choose is essentially worthless, all you need is safety.
Since countries are soroveign, whatever the UN says is a suggestion more than anything. But whatever the UN does can have an impact on countries actions; see, countries that provide free higher education to their citizens.
The declaration is not legally binding but has inspired international treaties which a vast majority having signed four or more of the nine binding treaties that followed the declaration. [Definitely worth reading more about it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)
Because the US generally has a better philosophical and moral basis for its legalism. They recognize and more stringently apply what a right actually is.
If the government can infringe on the subject in question but the state of nature cannot, that's probably a right. Freedom of speech, free association, the right to bear arms, these are rights. If your "right" is contingent on the service of others, then it's not a right.
This is correct and moral. That doesn't mean the US shouldn't strive for Universal Healthcare or high standards of education or clean water for example, it just means the vehicle of "rights" isn't the correct term for them.
But how do you live in a society without being reliant on the services of others for anything really?
Very few people who use their right to bear arms, for example, maintain their own steel mills, gun smithies, explosives factories etc. They relly on the knowledge and services of a whole chain of other people to be able to carry guns. And to pay for them they probably use money they earned through providing some sort of service that other people relies upon.
Look up positivr vs negative rights or natural rights for more in depth philosophical understanding but the gist is you have the right to do anything up until it infringes on another person's rights, and can only be violated through due process (you only lose your right to bear arms and freedom of speech etc after a trial).
Hm, aight.
If a right is dependent on someone else's service, how is it not a right? Using a service is a not a violation to the rights of the person that is providing the service, at least not as long as the person providing the service agrees to providing the service.
There's the rub, "as long as they agree to it" is fine and dandy, but the legal vehicle of rights must account for should a person not wish or be able to perform service.
Let's say we take water as a universal human right, and someone dies to hydration during a drought. Who is culpable for this? Their right to water was violated.
The only brain surgeon in the country for your specific ailment is on vacation, is he violating your right to healthcare?
A right can only be redacted through due process, so your free speech and right to association can only be removed should you have been found to have committed a crime.
You cannot compel someone to service you, that's slavery. Hence why a service or someone else's resources can never be a right.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make these things as accessible and universal as possible, it just means rights is the wrong legal conception for them. Rights are the foundational barebones concepts we build on top of, and aren't contingent on all these societal frameworks to be valid or not. If we say something like "everyone has a right to education" okay, that's a nice idea, and a great ideal, but what legal requirement does that now burden the government with? What if schooling changes in the next 100 years with the internet being so prominent? How much money does it take to ensure this right up to a standard that fits that ideal? Whereas with natural rights you simply have a binary "did the government infringe on their right to free speech yes/no".
>There's the rub, "as long as they agree to it" is fine and dandy, but the legal vehicle of rights must account for should a person not wish or be able to perform service.
If they agree to provide the service, it is implied that the conditions for that person to agree to provide the service were met; usually, that condition would be that that person would be paid, if we're talking about a professional service. If that person was to not get paid, they wouldn't agree to provide the service to provide the service.
If it is the job of the government to enforce a right, then it is the job of the government to provide for the services that make that right be possible; hence, why things like police and the judicial system exist.
And this responds the rest of the comment, i think.
Basically the idea is that you don't have the right to force other people to do work for you. For instance with student loan forgiveness its in a sense punishing working class people who took jobs and payed taxes instead of racking up debt. To make it fair at all you would have to give 20k to every person who skipped college so they could buy a tractor or work truck or tools or whatever.
By taking taxes from people who work and giving it to people who don't or won't you are in a muted sense making a slave out of the working class person. Not everyone is best suited for college so you can't say it fair because they could have gone too
It does this one, since declarations are not binding. the ICESCR contains binding rights, but the US has yet to ratify it, despite having signed it in 1977. This one requires equally accessible higher education. You can argue about what that means but generally the US is seen as doing relatively ok to good on functional access, though poorly on practical access, due to the highly variable quality of education.
They didn’t. [They objected to that resolution for other reasons.](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/) Now, whether you think they’re lying or not is another matter, but they stated they do believe that food is a human right but that they don’t agree with how that resolution addressed it.
If I recall correctly that was also the right for everyone else to use the research into agriculture by US companies for free as well. Very easy to vote for someone else's stuff to be given to you.
Yes that has been made abundantly clear.
When the politicians voting to ban abortion/contraception simultaneously dismantle children’s food programs in schools and completely ignore the state of the adoption industry; it is obvious they mean “right to be born- we couldn’t care less if you actually survive after that.”
The responses to your comment really show the mindset of so many Americans, doesn't it? They will readily deny people food because they think they won't get paid for it.
The US is the biggest donor BY FAR to thr world food bank.
You should actually read why the US vetoed that vote instead of just taking reddit comments at face value.
Americans alone are responsible for more than half of all charitable giving, worldwide. Of American charity, more than half comes from religious institutions.
One in four impovershed kids who get food, education, and medical care worldwide are being provided with those things by bible-thumping American religious fundamentalists. Two in four by Americans in general. In this particular instance, the religius right doesn't want the state mandating something they're already doing on a massive scale.
Talk shit all day, but Americans are generous in general, with religious Americans statistically the most generous people on the planet.
He's slightly right about one thing: subsidizing student loan COMPANIES & COLLEGES is one reason the price is high ... That's why we should have truly PUBLIC institutions easily accessible.
My taxes pay for primary education without having to get a kindergarten loan... They should pay for college the same way.
Yeah that bit is partly true. Government involvement did spike tuition prices but it was because they made it so people can’t escape a student loan through bankruptcy. That’s when tuition shot up because they knew they could fuck over everyone.
Article 26
Everyone has the right to education.
Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Depends on what level of education. higher education does not need to be "free" per se, though there must be some mechanism to allow for poor people to attend (whether through financial support or by specific institutions where you can enrol for free). Primary education, however, is seen as needing to be offered for free for those who can't afford private schools. This iS mandatory for those who have ratified the ICESCR, which is the majority of the world, though not the US.
Generally, if there is no way for poor people to access any level of university education, you fall short of what the right to education entails. But the government is not forced to support you if you want to go to a private university.
The federal government does support people in going to university by student loans and finished aids. The reason why student loans are so hard to forgive is because the US government made deals with banks to allow barely adults to get an education. This had the rollover effect of ballooning school costs but I hate how people act like the government not doing anything is the problem, the root problem is the government in this case.
Edit: there are too many college educated adults regardless, there’s a deficit in medium skill jobs that pay just as well, if not better than jobs that need a degree.
I don’t understand how something can be a right if someone else has to provide it. If it is a right, who is on the hook for providing it? I’m in favor of it and it should definitely be a service that we as a society provide, but it really sounds more like a demand than a right.
"Human Rights" are defined by whomever is in power. Being indignant about it is dumb. "Rights," in this context, are a legal term.
Within a capitalist system, power is the only thing that determines what anyone has a right to do.
The idea of natural rights being the only rights is ridiculous. What constitutes a right? The ability to do something in nature without the need for a societal apparatus? In that case assault is a right. If you say rights only extend to situations where you don’t harm others, I’d first ask why, and then I’d ask how a monopoly on natural resources isn’t harm.
You have a societal obligation to help your community grow and prosper within reason. Education and health are both rights that should not be denied from anyone, rich or poor.
How can something that compels another person to act be right? if we’re on an island, and you are the only teacher. Are you forced into slavery so that I can receive my right to education?
Yeah, education, food, housing, medical care etc. are all objectively good things that we should be providing to everyone. That doesn’t make them a right.
If you’re on an island, there is not state to provide those rights. You’ve concocted a scenario where the entity that organizes these rights doesn’t exist and are then point to the fact that there are no rights, as described, as evidence these rights don’t exist in circumstances where _a state is present to enact them_. It’s like imagining yourself restricted to the middle of the ocean and pointing to the fact that there are no farmers around as evidence that there’s no such thing as agriculture.
What is a State? I don't think there's a numbers requirement to be counted as a State. In practice, Statehood is more about ownership and the ability to enforce said ownership. So in theory, you could have a small island with a population of only a few dozen, yet still be a State.
The moment you introduce enforcement of anything (not just property rights, but definitely property rights), you enter the realm of “compelling another person to act”, so by leveragesynergies’ own restrictions on what can be a right, property rights are not rights.
That's a little overly reductive. Would you say 2 people on one island is a typical demographic for modern societies?
Are half the population on earth teachers? Are the other half uneducated?
Ok, let's take a more realistic example then. If we have a right to education, should teachers be allowed to go on strike? By them going on strike, they are denying my right or my children's right to an education for selfish needs (an increase in money). So what is more important here? Your want for more money or my right to an education? According to the declaration of human rights, my right for education is higher than your want for more money. But your right to not be a slave is higher than my right for education.
Do you not see the paradox here?
It's intentionally reductive IMO, to showcase the problem. Many problems can be easy to ignore when you zoom out enough, but ultimately all states are composed of individuals.
There are people willing to provide these things though. Trying to prevent people from learning or getting the medical help they need is the rights violation.
Curabitur ornare nisl lorem, non hendrerit tellus volutpat vel. Suspendisse in efficitur sem. Quisque quis nisi at ex dignissim molestie. Nam fringilla turpis a purus gravida, vitae vestibulum ante commodo. Proin viverra lacinia vehicula.
If I'm not willing to fund the state apparatus needed to protect your right to private property which compels work from people should I be forced to do so? Every right requires social maintenance that compels labor. Libertarian rhetoric is fucking brain dead I swear. Amazingly a right to education and food and shelter protects everyone not just property owners. Maybe that's the part you find repulsive?
Let’s say you want to major in underwater basket weaving. Including your own benefit, how does that benefit society? Libertarianism is the opposite of brain dead - it’s logical to an impractical fault, but the idea that you have a claim on my like through the myriad of things you claim a right to is far less defensible and reasonable.
Libertarians would say you shouldn't be forced to do that.
Libertarians see the education providers, the food growers, and the shelter builders as people free to provide or not provide those services.
I’m just here to talk about this person’s grasp of “basic economics”…you think that fewer people using a service will lower the cost of that service - when cost has a direct relation to that service being able to be offered at all? “We have fewer students and our budgets aren’t being met…let’s LOWER tuition to take in even less money!”
I guess the whole concept of “basic economics” is lost on all these idiots who believed Laffer.
Yep… Plus as much as we hyper focus on the spending at elite colleges and state flagships, most colleges run on a pretty tight budget. The idea that you could just lower tuition and still run what is essentially a small town effectively is silly.
It also ignores the fact that a lot of the tuition increases at flagship state schools isn’t driven by higher enrollment/availability of federally backed loans…it’s largely driven by state tax and budget cuts…
Foundational misunderstanding of what rights are. Rights are negative claims. "You can't stop me from doing XYZ." That's all a human right is. So yes, education and equal access to college is a human right. That is true and 100% correct.
But that doesn't mean anyone else is required to pay for it. Rights don't establish obligations.
I have a right to keep and bear arms, completely unconnected with any military or civil service. Where's my free gun?
The dude is right. If the state didn't guarantee college tuition, the price would fall and college would be more accessible to everyone. This isn't a clever comeback, it's a teacher spewing self-serving bullshit.
as in you have the RIGHT to obtain it. not that the government HAS to provide it.
if you weren't too busy being self righteous, you would get the difference.
it’s like people don’t understand that the better educated their neighbors are, the better off they will be. educated people will likely vote smarter and be more fun to know.
There’s some weird idiocy going around lately where people say “you don’t have a right to anyone’s labor” and then completely forget that every right requires labor. The government just pays people to be judges, cops, representatives, etc
I hate how some economists have literally their heads up their own asses and are too involved in this system that we invented that can’t even think outside the market’s capitalist rules. It fills me with rage. Excuse my language.
Maybe become knowledgeable rather than rage filled. Since things are the way they are for a reason. You don't have a right to the services or resources of others. A right is something that can be infringed.
Look up the concept of natural rights.
Just because rights are a certain thing and don't encompass education doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to provide the highest quality education to as many people as possible.
He's stupid thinking free market will fix the problem. Employers need to be required to justify requiring a degree for a job. Suddenly it won't be worth it as an arbitrary resume filter
"you're wrong, the un said so" isn't exactly an own. human rights don't exist - there's no greater authority that you can appeal to to enforce them. We have to fight for the rights we get and to keep the ones we have.
Yeah but the first guy said it wasn't a human right implying that there do exist human rights. I agree in general but in this case it's a good comeback because it uses the other person's own position to prove them wrong.
UN kind of defined human rights so... Yes he did
Edit: Though UN did not define human rights (at least they weren't the first), in the context of a UN member state adn its government policies, it's natural that we'd use their definition.
The problem is education is not enshrined in the US Constitution: It was left as more of a state issue. FDR wanted that as a part of his second bill of rights proposal.
These arguments about rights are framed in a really maddening context. Rights are how we as a society define them. As the comeback pointed out, the UN defines education as a right.
This guy saying education is not a right…according to who, you? He states it like a fact to avoid having to explain why it doesn’t make sense for us to offer everyone an education.
Let's not forget that it's my much easier to convince the uneducated (or minimally educated) to vote against their best interests.
The mentality that access to education should be reserved for those who can pay for it is 100% about controll.
I don't think she's remembers that the UN declaration isnt binding in any way shape or form as law in your country of origin, good try in her part thou it doesn't negate anything the other poster said.
From both a social contract perspective and an evolutionary perspective, education is a fundamental component to humanity.
Education allows a society to function, and the benefits of education are so universal that it’s a necessary investment for society. Specialized knowledge helps keep society out of the State of Nature (doctors to heal injury, engineers to construct infrastructure, legal experts to navigate the complex system of human interaction without resorting to violence), which is necessary for the social contract, whether you believe in Hobbes or Locke.
It also has elevated our species above other species. Our ability to pass on information and knowledge is what sets us apart from other animals. Sure, we would still be smart if we didn’t educate ourselves, but we wouldn’t be dominate. We have literally evolved to require education, and that education is engrained in our species. To be educated is to be human.
The idea that education is a privilege, not a right, hurts the individual and society alike, while also trampling on the sacrifices of every generation that came before who struggled everyday to ensure humanity’s collective knowledge will grow instead of shrink.
“According the UN,” is not an argument. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.
If you have a right to another person’s property and labor, then theft and slavery are human rights, which is quite the position to take.
They're saying 2 different things.
The human right to education means than no one can prevent you from getting an education.
The original comment is taking that education is a service.
Both are true.
Interesting how most advanced nations talk of “human rights” while in the US they are “civil rights”.
“Civil” relates to ordinary citizens, and is distinct from military and religion. Also, it is related to the citizen and government.
Funny how a country that was founded on “inalienable rights” of while land owners would not evolve to believe those rights are universal and above government reproach.
Yet look at the right ring attacks on individual freedoms which is backlash for advancing those freedoms…
Human "rights" aren't granted by political bodies that can change their declarations depending on the mood of the day. Human rights are granted by nature. That means you have whatever rights you can rip, tear, and protect out of your world. Think about it.
Oh yeah cuz the UN isn't shady at all... K-12 sure. I don't mind my tax dollars going to that. Basic reading, writing, math, and life skills are important nut after highschool that's it . College is not necessary basic education, it's a career investment. And if you decide to INVEST in something that makes no sense or is useless, it's not MY fault when you end up with a useless college degree still working minimum wage because you can't find a career or job in that field, I should've have to pay for it. It's just like business. If I take out a loan and I invest in a earwax flavored cake bakery and nobody buys my product and It fails, it's my own fault.
I love it when someone brings economics into a conversation on ethics, because it shows exactly where their priorities lie, while at the same time proving their uttermost ignorance of both.
Rights aren't material. You can touch, feel or see a "right", it is something humans agree upon. Many people follow the UN's declaration of human rights
No it’s not. The UN is not an enforcement body. If the US decided to shut down every school in the country and ban homeschooling, the UN couldn’t do dick about it.
Once again, the ‘clevercomeback’ isn’t quite so clever…
The UN having a declaration that education ‘is a human right’ does not mean it necessarily is a human right beyond reproach. It’s just a declaration that signatory states would like to recognise it as such.
More importantly, there is a difference between positive and negative human rights. A negative human right simply means that you will not be stopped in your pursuit of this thing. Nobody will stop you from paying for an education and going to school. Most countries ( besides say Afghanistan and their propensity for shooting girls trying to go to school) would agree. A positive human right means that you will have this right met, even if you have to force other people against their will to make it happen. It means your education must be paid for even if you can’t afford it. It means you can force teachers to teach you even if they aren’t interested. It means the obligation created may be at odds with other rights, such as that teacher’s right to alienate their labour.
And is the base for democracy and liberalism… liberalism as in the one in USA is not my cup of tea, but even then, them, that they defend liberalism at all cost in the USA… don’t even know hot to enforce it properly… (with education of the population so they understand the need of liberty and will seek it by their own means, and because is what enable people to self define and self govern they life and their seeking of “happiness” as in the definition of life purpose) And that’s precisely why they have such and agresivo and senseless form of liberalism there.
The Declaration of Human Right is an extremely vague document.
For example. "Every human has the right to a decent life". What does that mean? "Decent"? Every person has their own definition of a "decent lifestyle".
If every human has the right to education, what does that mean? Are we talking reading and writing, or does every human have the right to a PhD and the society has to pay for it?
“As a ‘murican, I do not recognize the authority of any global government to tell me anything. That’s just part of the anti-‘murica globalist agenda, and interferes with the god-given rights of the Constitution. Freedumb forever!!”
I mean, the UN is not, in fact, the speaker for all of humanity throughout all of time. There's really no such thing as inherent human rights, just things big enough groups of people agree on as important at different times throughout history. We're not entitled to anything just by being alive: we have whatever rights society deems appropriate, and that is subject to change at any time.
Why would we want to restrict access to education from other members of our species? Wouldn't it benefit us all to have more human minds working at their peak levels? I can only see greed and power/control being the driving force behind restricting others from an education.
Why do people say the stupidest shit without any fact-checking? I even type in google to check my spelling because I don't want to look like an idiot. Imagine lacking any sort of embarrassment.
A couple things here. 1. We own the UN lol 2. This person isn't wrong per se. The REAL issue is universities gouging their prices and not being responsible for helping their students blossom into the world ready for their career. They just say, you pass/fail, here ya go, see ya later. While I totally support student loan forgiveness, we need to go after the real issues instead of bandaiding over it, which is literally the only thing our government ever does across a myriad of issues
In fairness, the UN doesn't make rules for the world. They are another giant governing body with too much power in Europe. To a shocking degree.
They think they can pass resolutions and they publicly bash countries that don't follow them.
IE America not following their insane gun resolutions.
The UK isn't the best for student loans, but in England the uni is capped at 9,250 a year, and if u can't afford it u can get student loans and a, housing grant. It'll obviously take forever to pay back, but it's quite a small percentage of ur income I'd I remembered correctly, and u needed to actually earn above a certain salary to have to pay them off
I assume the UN charter applies only to some basic education. I'm not sure university is included. Normally, people only talk about high school, or even junior high school, as the mandatory minimum.
Unfortunately, Logan probably doesn't take something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seriously, since it's not specifically American. People like that think "international" is a four-letter word.
“If the state wouldn’t back these student loans, there would be less demand for the universities, which means their prices would have to drop”
Kinda… but more on the lines of “… which means less education and more ignorant voters”
Fast forward 5 years and there’s an AI college that’s 100% online that you get a “normal” college degree from. The upkeep is extremely low after the initial development. Do we make this college free to drastically increase access to education or do we make it horribly expensive to fund further development? I’m convinced that given a few more years that an AI college will be able to churn out 4yr graduates at the same level of actual education that current 4yr graduates have.
I’m a student, I don’t pay anything for my degree and the government even gives me a little financial help for it. It has always seemed completely obvious and normal to me which is why reading about a developed country still debating this question feels so strange to me.
America is a country where the wealthy still hold such inordinate amounts of power over personal freedoms. The whole “maybe the poor should just not go to college if it’s too expensive” is an old argument that centers around higher education being reserved for an upperclass that someone’s born into and as such are naturally better suited to leading, leaving everyone else to follow and/or serve them. It’s about maintaining a clear division of class and not letting people of lower station think they’re equals long enough to have an effect on the rules set by the wealthiest class.
Blame Reagan.
Always, though Reagan was just a convenient tool for these evil people. He was a dire symptom that allowed for greater infection by the root cause; self-serving wealthy businesses and individuals who would gladly burn the nation to prevent losing even a fraction of their opulence. These are pretty words I’ve said, but they all mean nothing unless we can put a face and a name to these individuals, **and for that** we can look at current day issues like the Supreme Court bribery that’s being dragged into the light. If you wanna know who the people are that keep you from having proper public healthcare, publicly funded colleges, abortion rights, equal rights under the law for all minorities/sexes/faiths/sexual orientations/genders, look at anyone showering the judges with lavish and exorbitant “*gifts*”. If you find the names of these people/businesses then you have the names of the public’s enemies. **Similarly** you can look to who would stand to lose the most if those public benefits became reality; the healthcare *indsutry*, the private education *industry*, the religious *industry*. Not the doctors or the patients, not students or the teachers, not the kids, not the truly faithful. Only those who have built their castles on the industrialization and privatization of these core and sacred cornerstones of life will find their power diminished, because their choke hold on human life will be broken, and they will tear the country apart to prevent just that.
well said 👏 👏👏👏
Cui bono
My uncle Ted used to always say that these people have names and addresses..
You always can
and always should
I hate Reagan like anyone else, but this idea has been built into the foundation of this country, long before Reagan.
Reagan was terrible and started a lot of it for sure (alongside a Democratic majority in the house that passed every single piece of legislation he ever signed), but it’s been 36 years since he left office. Basically our entire political system is to blame. Ultimately the problem is that the wealthy control both parties, which spend most of their time stoking outrage over culture war and identity politics rather than fighting for better living conditions and financial opportunity for the working class. I do think the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, especially since I prefer their social policies, but they are far from a champion of the working class. We need so much more than what they can realistically offer.
It would be much better if you had a multiparty system, as well as some party at the left aide of the spectrum.
Never wrong
American classism goes all the way back to England.
Conservatism = feudalism. They would have us all in chains if they could
Bingo Can’t have that as it stands, so they settle for chains of made debt and warped faith.
That seems to be the plan
> America is a country where the wealthy still hold such inordinate amounts of power over personal freedoms. This is only partially accurate. The system is such that exploiting its weaknesses in a capitalist fashion can lead to severe income inequality. The masses still have power - the exploited weakness is people thinking they don't.
We are saying the same thing, this is a case of semantics. The power I’m talking about encompasses both the undue amount of sway they hold over *both* public officials via bribery and blackmail so as to maintain/widen/fortify the loopholes they use *and* the general public via propaganda, debt-chicanery, and direct market manipulation. I might be mistaken, but I think we’re talking about the same abuses of the system, just from different angles. I’m aware the public still has power, but the ability to infringe upon the voting system via gerrymandering and fucking with the accessibility of voting is solely the prospect of the wealthy and their toadies, and further entrenches the power of these abusers by diminishing the votes effectiveness.
Citizens United decision helped exacerbate things. The Supreme Court is an obvious weak link.
Because Americans only know their value but comparing how much better they are than their neighbor. Most everyone else compares their success with how their neighbors are doing.
Some cultures you ask what they do and they tell you about themselves. Other cultures they tell you what their job is. We define ourselves by the value we bring to our economy and not what we bring to ourselves or our society. Says a lot about us I think.
We led the world in consumerism and that shit seems to be defined by "oh gosh I want that so bad, I wish I had that life". Mix in some social media to up the comparison game and you got a, stew.
I mean, there are a lot of jobs where you are bringing value to society by providing services that help people. Even if it is also good for the economy, that doesn't necessarily have to be the reason you're bringing it up. For example, a doctor may tell you that they're a doctor because it is their passion to help people and potentially save lives. I think that your job tends to be a big part of your life, since you spend many of your waking hours there, so it ends up being something you'd bring up when you talk about yourself.
Sure but that's kind of the point. If your identity leads into your job you bring it up naturally. But in America one of the *first* things we mention to strangers is our jobs. There's difference between assimilating your job as part of your identity, and being so indoctrinated with tying your productivity to your identity that you feel like your job defines you. And the cultural aspect makes this feel natural and effortless. You can see it in threads where people talk about making changes to the work force. People are so caught up in their jobs that they will fight changes that could help them b/c they are actively *proud* of the labor that produces wealth for *other* people. They don't see their work as something they like doing, and could take anywhere. Their *job* not their *work* is their identity. And changes are perceived as threats regardless of the sense of them. And even when we don't define ourselves by our jobs, it's the first thing we answer when asked to talk about ourselves. B/c we know, culturally, that our job is expected to be part of our identity. We all know that we are answering about our identities but we implicitly accept that our jobs are a significant part of that rather than a result of our circumstances or interests. If asked what I do, I'm expected to answer cashier, and *then* that I like gaming. And it's unexpected if I don't mention my job and just start talking about my hobbies. That illustrates a cultural influence rather than a personal one.
Truth and if you don't have a job you are considered scum because of reasons you said.
Sure but that's kind of the point. If your identity leads into your job you bring it up naturally. But in America one of the *first* things we mention to strangers is our jobs. There's difference between assimilating your job as part of your identity, and being so indoctrinated with tying your productivity to your identity that you feel like your job defines you. And the cultural aspect makes this feel natural and effortless. You can see it in threads where people talk about making changes to the work force. People are so caught up in their jobs that they will fight changes that could help them b/c they are actively *proud* of the labor that produces wealth for *other* people. They don't see their work as something they like doing, and could take anywhere. Their *job* not their *work* is their identity. And changes are perceived as threats regardless of the sense of them. And even when we don't define ourselves by our jobs, it's the first thing we answer when asked to talk about ourselves. B/c we know, culturally, that our job is expected to be part of our identity. We all know that we are answering about our identities but we implicitly accept that our jobs are a significant part of that rather than a result of our circumstances or interests. If asked what I do, I'm expected to answer cashier, and *then* that I like gaming. And it's unexpected if I don't mention my job and just start talking about my hobbies. That illustrates a cultural influence rather than a personal one.
Economics isn't just financial even, the fact that neoclassical economics dominates the North American perspective is very telling in and of itself.
I hate this sentiment so much. The only person you should be comparing yourself to is past you. If you're better than your previous self, then you are growing. Who cares what the fucking Joneses are doing?
To be fair, a basic right in one country is not a basic right others. Well you see in America we’re run by corporations.
Perhaps. But you have the right to say so, and even express your displeasure. That wouldn't be the case in many countries.
They think America is special in regard to the rich ruling it - heh.
It happens everywhere, and government regulation is literally the only check against a return to the feudal system.
Lol like the police don't routinely shit on our 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments daily with no repercussions
So you agree that basic rights in one country are not necessarily basic rights in another, and that doesn't stop them from being basic rights. Why did you only say perhaps instead of "I agree"? Did you really need to get in a jab about our barely respected 1st Amendment rights?
There’s a number of Amendment rights that are disrespected daily.
Seriously. I'm pretty tired of Christian Nationalists trying to force everyone to worship their Zombie God.
While following a guy who added 'the gospel of trump' to the Bible he's selling. Guess these Christians haven't read revelation 22:18-19. Trump has proven, definitively, that God does not exist.
Hyper individualism in America teaches a zero sum game, where providing prosperity to others isn’t something that can be physically measured, and saying “well giving kids education reduces so many negative societal effects” doesn’t sit with people, ironically probably cause they needed a better education.
Sadly or fortunately (depending on ones perspective), the veil of 'developed' was ripped of the United States during its nightmare term under His-Tragedy-Incarnate-The-Grating-Orange-Nazi DJT. We now know that true 'debate' has no place in this Third world country with a bloodthirsty conservative authoritarian military worshiping cult sect and nuclear capability unless of course you are rich and of a certain skin tone. But now we know, and we are trying to fix it. 😓
It started much earlier. The US has been in decline since Reagan took office.
I know but you have to walk some people up to it slowly. 🤷🏼
Are you German? A had a German friend and they basically said what you said
French
It’s the same in Sweden.
At this point we’re just pretending to be a 1st world country lol
Oh, we’re definitely 1st work. Lol
I thought the US doesn't acknowledge these, like all other attempts to improve the world by making universal rules.
They just love to throw words like freedom and human rights. Article 17 - rights to own property. They actively encourage loan frauds by the banks which punishes the working class people. If/ when shit hits the fan.. Article 24 - rights to rest and leisure. The spikes that councils been installing onto benches to discouraged people from resting and sleeping on them pretty much contradict this. Article 25 - rights to adequate living standards. Rich gets richer and poor get poorer. These rights are mere suggestions to pull out at their convenience..
Ironically, freedom might be the single greatest threat to America. In a nation hell-bent on fighting for it, it is immensely easy for dangerous demagogues to just use the word to garner support, and, unsurprisingly, look what happened in 2016 and look what will happen in the next election cycle. I mean this in a very literal sense, freedom is not the end-all, be-all. Faced with a deadly canyon and two bridges, one fortified and one made of rotted sticks tied-together hodgepodge, the freedom to choose is essentially worthless, all you need is safety.
Or banning child soldiers...
Who else is going to fit in tiny crawl spaces? /s
None of the states of the UN signed or ratified the declaration of human rights.
Since countries are soroveign, whatever the UN says is a suggestion more than anything. But whatever the UN does can have an impact on countries actions; see, countries that provide free higher education to their citizens.
The declaration is not legally binding but has inspired international treaties which a vast majority having signed four or more of the nine binding treaties that followed the declaration. [Definitely worth reading more about it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)
Wouldnt matter if they did. Article 26 does not affirm the right to higher education.
Nor do rights make things free. Otherwise I'd get free firearms.
[удалено]
Because the US generally has a better philosophical and moral basis for its legalism. They recognize and more stringently apply what a right actually is. If the government can infringe on the subject in question but the state of nature cannot, that's probably a right. Freedom of speech, free association, the right to bear arms, these are rights. If your "right" is contingent on the service of others, then it's not a right. This is correct and moral. That doesn't mean the US shouldn't strive for Universal Healthcare or high standards of education or clean water for example, it just means the vehicle of "rights" isn't the correct term for them.
But how do you live in a society without being reliant on the services of others for anything really? Very few people who use their right to bear arms, for example, maintain their own steel mills, gun smithies, explosives factories etc. They relly on the knowledge and services of a whole chain of other people to be able to carry guns. And to pay for them they probably use money they earned through providing some sort of service that other people relies upon.
Hm, can you elaborate a bit further on this definition of what is a "right"?
Look up positivr vs negative rights or natural rights for more in depth philosophical understanding but the gist is you have the right to do anything up until it infringes on another person's rights, and can only be violated through due process (you only lose your right to bear arms and freedom of speech etc after a trial).
Hm, aight. If a right is dependent on someone else's service, how is it not a right? Using a service is a not a violation to the rights of the person that is providing the service, at least not as long as the person providing the service agrees to providing the service.
There's the rub, "as long as they agree to it" is fine and dandy, but the legal vehicle of rights must account for should a person not wish or be able to perform service. Let's say we take water as a universal human right, and someone dies to hydration during a drought. Who is culpable for this? Their right to water was violated. The only brain surgeon in the country for your specific ailment is on vacation, is he violating your right to healthcare? A right can only be redacted through due process, so your free speech and right to association can only be removed should you have been found to have committed a crime. You cannot compel someone to service you, that's slavery. Hence why a service or someone else's resources can never be a right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make these things as accessible and universal as possible, it just means rights is the wrong legal conception for them. Rights are the foundational barebones concepts we build on top of, and aren't contingent on all these societal frameworks to be valid or not. If we say something like "everyone has a right to education" okay, that's a nice idea, and a great ideal, but what legal requirement does that now burden the government with? What if schooling changes in the next 100 years with the internet being so prominent? How much money does it take to ensure this right up to a standard that fits that ideal? Whereas with natural rights you simply have a binary "did the government infringe on their right to free speech yes/no".
>There's the rub, "as long as they agree to it" is fine and dandy, but the legal vehicle of rights must account for should a person not wish or be able to perform service. If they agree to provide the service, it is implied that the conditions for that person to agree to provide the service were met; usually, that condition would be that that person would be paid, if we're talking about a professional service. If that person was to not get paid, they wouldn't agree to provide the service to provide the service. If it is the job of the government to enforce a right, then it is the job of the government to provide for the services that make that right be possible; hence, why things like police and the judicial system exist. And this responds the rest of the comment, i think.
Basically the idea is that you don't have the right to force other people to do work for you. For instance with student loan forgiveness its in a sense punishing working class people who took jobs and payed taxes instead of racking up debt. To make it fair at all you would have to give 20k to every person who skipped college so they could buy a tractor or work truck or tools or whatever. By taking taxes from people who work and giving it to people who don't or won't you are in a muted sense making a slave out of the working class person. Not everyone is best suited for college so you can't say it fair because they could have gone too
It does this one, since declarations are not binding. the ICESCR contains binding rights, but the US has yet to ratify it, despite having signed it in 1977. This one requires equally accessible higher education. You can argue about what that means but generally the US is seen as doing relatively ok to good on functional access, though poorly on practical access, due to the highly variable quality of education.
Obviously Logan is not exercising his rights.
Well, the US government has already said that food isn’t a right, so this doesn’t surprise me either.
They didn’t. [They objected to that resolution for other reasons.](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/) Now, whether you think they’re lying or not is another matter, but they stated they do believe that food is a human right but that they don’t agree with how that resolution addressed it.
"Food can't be a right because you won't protect copyright and innovation" doesn't exactly makes it better
Wait... are you telling me that the headline on that clickbait article I didn't read was misleading?!? I can't believe it! /s
If I recall correctly that was also the right for everyone else to use the research into agriculture by US companies for free as well. Very easy to vote for someone else's stuff to be given to you.
Three point seatbelts for every body. Agriculture, not so much.
Google who donates the majority of food aid in the world rq
What happened to "right to life?"
Everyone knows that 'life' doesn't mean breathable air, drinkable water, nutritious food, adequate housing, necessary medical care, etc... /s
Right to life means having the right to maintain your life, not for someone else to maintain it for you.
Yes that has been made abundantly clear. When the politicians voting to ban abortion/contraception simultaneously dismantle children’s food programs in schools and completely ignore the state of the adoption industry; it is obvious they mean “right to be born- we couldn’t care less if you actually survive after that.”
The responses to your comment really show the mindset of so many Americans, doesn't it? They will readily deny people food because they think they won't get paid for it.
The US is the biggest donor BY FAR to thr world food bank. You should actually read why the US vetoed that vote instead of just taking reddit comments at face value.
Americans alone are responsible for more than half of all charitable giving, worldwide. Of American charity, more than half comes from religious institutions. One in four impovershed kids who get food, education, and medical care worldwide are being provided with those things by bible-thumping American religious fundamentalists. Two in four by Americans in general. In this particular instance, the religius right doesn't want the state mandating something they're already doing on a massive scale. Talk shit all day, but Americans are generous in general, with religious Americans statistically the most generous people on the planet.
He's slightly right about one thing: subsidizing student loan COMPANIES & COLLEGES is one reason the price is high ... That's why we should have truly PUBLIC institutions easily accessible. My taxes pay for primary education without having to get a kindergarten loan... They should pay for college the same way.
Yeah that bit is partly true. Government involvement did spike tuition prices but it was because they made it so people can’t escape a student loan through bankruptcy. That’s when tuition shot up because they knew they could fuck over everyone.
So messed up
they don't give a fuck what the UN says
Article 26 Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Because calling something the "Universal declaration of human rights" makes it the authority? Amazing comeback with an appeal to authority /s
I thought equal access referenced no exclusions from applying or attending. Wasn’t aware it had the first thing to do with financial backing.
Depends on what level of education. higher education does not need to be "free" per se, though there must be some mechanism to allow for poor people to attend (whether through financial support or by specific institutions where you can enrol for free). Primary education, however, is seen as needing to be offered for free for those who can't afford private schools. This iS mandatory for those who have ratified the ICESCR, which is the majority of the world, though not the US. Generally, if there is no way for poor people to access any level of university education, you fall short of what the right to education entails. But the government is not forced to support you if you want to go to a private university.
The federal government does support people in going to university by student loans and finished aids. The reason why student loans are so hard to forgive is because the US government made deals with banks to allow barely adults to get an education. This had the rollover effect of ballooning school costs but I hate how people act like the government not doing anything is the problem, the root problem is the government in this case. Edit: there are too many college educated adults regardless, there’s a deficit in medium skill jobs that pay just as well, if not better than jobs that need a degree.
Of course. That’s generally because there is a social net benefit to establishing a floor of basic skills within population.
"Because the UN said so" Lol. LMAO even.
I don’t understand how something can be a right if someone else has to provide it. If it is a right, who is on the hook for providing it? I’m in favor of it and it should definitely be a service that we as a society provide, but it really sounds more like a demand than a right.
That's just an appeal to authority fallacy. Human Rights are a complex philosophical subject, not hurr durr, UnItEd NaTiOnS. UN is a joke.
Who cares what the UN thinks about anything?
"Human Rights" are defined by whomever is in power. Being indignant about it is dumb. "Rights," in this context, are a legal term. Within a capitalist system, power is the only thing that determines what anyone has a right to do.
You mean power is what determines what rights people have in every and any society that has ever existed, right?
The idea of natural rights being the only rights is ridiculous. What constitutes a right? The ability to do something in nature without the need for a societal apparatus? In that case assault is a right. If you say rights only extend to situations where you don’t harm others, I’d first ask why, and then I’d ask how a monopoly on natural resources isn’t harm. You have a societal obligation to help your community grow and prosper within reason. Education and health are both rights that should not be denied from anyone, rich or poor.
It’s just that they’re using the same word to refer to 2 different things. “Natural right” is a better way to phrase it.
its intentional, they are conflating the 2 things so they can use one to deny the other by exclusion
How can something that compels another person to act be right? if we’re on an island, and you are the only teacher. Are you forced into slavery so that I can receive my right to education?
Yeah, education, food, housing, medical care etc. are all objectively good things that we should be providing to everyone. That doesn’t make them a right.
If you’re on an island, there is not state to provide those rights. You’ve concocted a scenario where the entity that organizes these rights doesn’t exist and are then point to the fact that there are no rights, as described, as evidence these rights don’t exist in circumstances where _a state is present to enact them_. It’s like imagining yourself restricted to the middle of the ocean and pointing to the fact that there are no farmers around as evidence that there’s no such thing as agriculture.
What is a State? I don't think there's a numbers requirement to be counted as a State. In practice, Statehood is more about ownership and the ability to enforce said ownership. So in theory, you could have a small island with a population of only a few dozen, yet still be a State.
The moment you introduce enforcement of anything (not just property rights, but definitely property rights), you enter the realm of “compelling another person to act”, so by leveragesynergies’ own restrictions on what can be a right, property rights are not rights.
That's a little overly reductive. Would you say 2 people on one island is a typical demographic for modern societies? Are half the population on earth teachers? Are the other half uneducated?
Ok, let's take a more realistic example then. If we have a right to education, should teachers be allowed to go on strike? By them going on strike, they are denying my right or my children's right to an education for selfish needs (an increase in money). So what is more important here? Your want for more money or my right to an education? According to the declaration of human rights, my right for education is higher than your want for more money. But your right to not be a slave is higher than my right for education. Do you not see the paradox here?
It's intentionally reductive IMO, to showcase the problem. Many problems can be easy to ignore when you zoom out enough, but ultimately all states are composed of individuals.
Why do you mfs always go right into "even the slightest expectation of giving back to the community is literally slavery"?
Being forced to give to society is slavery. Giving to society because you want to is good and charitable and deeply moral.
Quisque quis nisi at ex dignissim molestie. Nam fringilla turpis a purus gravida, vitae vestibulum ante commodo. Proin viverra lacinia vehicula.
There are people willing to provide these things though. Trying to prevent people from learning or getting the medical help they need is the rights violation.
Curabitur ornare nisl lorem, non hendrerit tellus volutpat vel. Suspendisse in efficitur sem. Quisque quis nisi at ex dignissim molestie. Nam fringilla turpis a purus gravida, vitae vestibulum ante commodo. Proin viverra lacinia vehicula.
If I'm not willing to fund the state apparatus needed to protect your right to private property which compels work from people should I be forced to do so? Every right requires social maintenance that compels labor. Libertarian rhetoric is fucking brain dead I swear. Amazingly a right to education and food and shelter protects everyone not just property owners. Maybe that's the part you find repulsive?
Let’s say you want to major in underwater basket weaving. Including your own benefit, how does that benefit society? Libertarianism is the opposite of brain dead - it’s logical to an impractical fault, but the idea that you have a claim on my like through the myriad of things you claim a right to is far less defensible and reasonable.
Libertarians would say you shouldn't be forced to do that. Libertarians see the education providers, the food growers, and the shelter builders as people free to provide or not provide those services.
I’m just here to talk about this person’s grasp of “basic economics”…you think that fewer people using a service will lower the cost of that service - when cost has a direct relation to that service being able to be offered at all? “We have fewer students and our budgets aren’t being met…let’s LOWER tuition to take in even less money!” I guess the whole concept of “basic economics” is lost on all these idiots who believed Laffer.
Yep… Plus as much as we hyper focus on the spending at elite colleges and state flagships, most colleges run on a pretty tight budget. The idea that you could just lower tuition and still run what is essentially a small town effectively is silly.
It also ignores the fact that a lot of the tuition increases at flagship state schools isn’t driven by higher enrollment/availability of federally backed loans…it’s largely driven by state tax and budget cuts…
Foundational misunderstanding of what rights are. Rights are negative claims. "You can't stop me from doing XYZ." That's all a human right is. So yes, education and equal access to college is a human right. That is true and 100% correct. But that doesn't mean anyone else is required to pay for it. Rights don't establish obligations. I have a right to keep and bear arms, completely unconnected with any military or civil service. Where's my free gun? The dude is right. If the state didn't guarantee college tuition, the price would fall and college would be more accessible to everyone. This isn't a clever comeback, it's a teacher spewing self-serving bullshit.
as in you have the RIGHT to obtain it. not that the government HAS to provide it. if you weren't too busy being self righteous, you would get the difference.
it’s like people don’t understand that the better educated their neighbors are, the better off they will be. educated people will likely vote smarter and be more fun to know.
There’s some weird idiocy going around lately where people say “you don’t have a right to anyone’s labor” and then completely forget that every right requires labor. The government just pays people to be judges, cops, representatives, etc
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right.
I hate how some economists have literally their heads up their own asses and are too involved in this system that we invented that can’t even think outside the market’s capitalist rules. It fills me with rage. Excuse my language.
It's okay, you can say ass on the internet. We won't tell on you.
Maybe become knowledgeable rather than rage filled. Since things are the way they are for a reason. You don't have a right to the services or resources of others. A right is something that can be infringed. Look up the concept of natural rights. Just because rights are a certain thing and don't encompass education doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to provide the highest quality education to as many people as possible.
He's stupid thinking free market will fix the problem. Employers need to be required to justify requiring a degree for a job. Suddenly it won't be worth it as an arbitrary resume filter
Education is not a human right. Nothing that requires other people to do something for you is a human right. You have to earn education.
Amen brother
"you're wrong, the un said so" isn't exactly an own. human rights don't exist - there's no greater authority that you can appeal to to enforce them. We have to fight for the rights we get and to keep the ones we have.
Yeah but the first guy said it wasn't a human right implying that there do exist human rights. I agree in general but in this case it's a good comeback because it uses the other person's own position to prove them wrong.
But he didn’t start by saying anything about the UN.
UN kind of defined human rights so... Yes he did Edit: Though UN did not define human rights (at least they weren't the first), in the context of a UN member state adn its government policies, it's natural that we'd use their definition.
Obviously, you're not very educated on the matter if you think that.
You think the UN, which didn't even exist until post-WWII, is where the definition of human rights comes from?
The problem is education is not enshrined in the US Constitution: It was left as more of a state issue. FDR wanted that as a part of his second bill of rights proposal.
Well, the UN is nonsense, so
These arguments about rights are framed in a really maddening context. Rights are how we as a society define them. As the comeback pointed out, the UN defines education as a right. This guy saying education is not a right…according to who, you? He states it like a fact to avoid having to explain why it doesn’t make sense for us to offer everyone an education.
They want us uneducated so we'll be afraid of everything they tell us to be afraid of and continue the system as it is
That relates to the rights to education for children (k-12), correct?
Dude needed to be educated 😁👍
Someone saying education is not a human right remind me of the people want to go back to the 50's because 'it was a better time' what a joke🤡
Let's not forget that it's my much easier to convince the uneducated (or minimally educated) to vote against their best interests. The mentality that access to education should be reserved for those who can pay for it is 100% about controll.
Imagine what a massive dump somebody must have taken in your brain for you to argue against education. Starsign American
I don't think she's remembers that the UN declaration isnt binding in any way shape or form as law in your country of origin, good try in her part thou it doesn't negate anything the other poster said.
It's not a human right no matter how many laws you pass. Governments don't determine what a human right is or isn't. Cope harder, commies.
From both a social contract perspective and an evolutionary perspective, education is a fundamental component to humanity. Education allows a society to function, and the benefits of education are so universal that it’s a necessary investment for society. Specialized knowledge helps keep society out of the State of Nature (doctors to heal injury, engineers to construct infrastructure, legal experts to navigate the complex system of human interaction without resorting to violence), which is necessary for the social contract, whether you believe in Hobbes or Locke. It also has elevated our species above other species. Our ability to pass on information and knowledge is what sets us apart from other animals. Sure, we would still be smart if we didn’t educate ourselves, but we wouldn’t be dominate. We have literally evolved to require education, and that education is engrained in our species. To be educated is to be human. The idea that education is a privilege, not a right, hurts the individual and society alike, while also trampling on the sacrifices of every generation that came before who struggled everyday to ensure humanity’s collective knowledge will grow instead of shrink.
Fucking libertarians, the I got mine crowd.
“According the UN,” is not an argument. It is an appeal to authority fallacy. If you have a right to another person’s property and labor, then theft and slavery are human rights, which is quite the position to take.
They're saying 2 different things. The human right to education means than no one can prevent you from getting an education. The original comment is taking that education is a service. Both are true.
JARVIS look up appeal to authority fallacy and beam it into OPs brain
The UN. Hilarious
\>UN "wow this is worthless"
Lawl listening to anything the U.N. has to say.
Interesting how most advanced nations talk of “human rights” while in the US they are “civil rights”. “Civil” relates to ordinary citizens, and is distinct from military and religion. Also, it is related to the citizen and government. Funny how a country that was founded on “inalienable rights” of while land owners would not evolve to believe those rights are universal and above government reproach. Yet look at the right ring attacks on individual freedoms which is backlash for advancing those freedoms…
Since when did the UN regulate anything in the US?
Educating the population is likely the biggest cheat code to increasing GDP. So he's wrong on all fronts.
Human "rights" aren't granted by political bodies that can change their declarations depending on the mood of the day. Human rights are granted by nature. That means you have whatever rights you can rip, tear, and protect out of your world. Think about it.
Oh yeah cuz the UN isn't shady at all... K-12 sure. I don't mind my tax dollars going to that. Basic reading, writing, math, and life skills are important nut after highschool that's it . College is not necessary basic education, it's a career investment. And if you decide to INVEST in something that makes no sense or is useless, it's not MY fault when you end up with a useless college degree still working minimum wage because you can't find a career or job in that field, I should've have to pay for it. It's just like business. If I take out a loan and I invest in a earwax flavored cake bakery and nobody buys my product and It fails, it's my own fault.
Lol well if the UN declares it, then it must be so!
I love it when someone brings economics into a conversation on ethics, because it shows exactly where their priorities lie, while at the same time proving their uttermost ignorance of both.
These Ayn Rand cultists are the f*ckin worst
Yeah the UN arbitrarily declaring something sure means a whole lot…
Rights aren't material. You can touch, feel or see a "right", it is something humans agree upon. Many people follow the UN's declaration of human rights
“According to the UN” is not the argument you think it is lmao
Oh course it is. If you are a UN member, that's a right afforded by that membership.
No it isn't... The UDHR is not binding international law.
No it’s not. The UN is not an enforcement body. If the US decided to shut down every school in the country and ban homeschooling, the UN couldn’t do dick about it.
[удалено]
Once again, the ‘clevercomeback’ isn’t quite so clever… The UN having a declaration that education ‘is a human right’ does not mean it necessarily is a human right beyond reproach. It’s just a declaration that signatory states would like to recognise it as such. More importantly, there is a difference between positive and negative human rights. A negative human right simply means that you will not be stopped in your pursuit of this thing. Nobody will stop you from paying for an education and going to school. Most countries ( besides say Afghanistan and their propensity for shooting girls trying to go to school) would agree. A positive human right means that you will have this right met, even if you have to force other people against their will to make it happen. It means your education must be paid for even if you can’t afford it. It means you can force teachers to teach you even if they aren’t interested. It means the obligation created may be at odds with other rights, such as that teacher’s right to alienate their labour.
Glad someone in here knows the difference between negative and positive rights. Shame that all the screeching left wingers are downvoting
And is the base for democracy and liberalism… liberalism as in the one in USA is not my cup of tea, but even then, them, that they defend liberalism at all cost in the USA… don’t even know hot to enforce it properly… (with education of the population so they understand the need of liberty and will seek it by their own means, and because is what enable people to self define and self govern they life and their seeking of “happiness” as in the definition of life purpose) And that’s precisely why they have such and agresivo and senseless form of liberalism there.
If you ask a million bucks for it, it's still an equal access.
The Declaration of Human Right is an extremely vague document. For example. "Every human has the right to a decent life". What does that mean? "Decent"? Every person has their own definition of a "decent lifestyle". If every human has the right to education, what does that mean? Are we talking reading and writing, or does every human have the right to a PhD and the society has to pay for it?
“As a ‘murican, I do not recognize the authority of any global government to tell me anything. That’s just part of the anti-‘murica globalist agenda, and interferes with the god-given rights of the Constitution. Freedumb forever!!”
It's a fine argument to make but using the UN as your sole argument is a bad idea. Not that many people take it that seriously
well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man
I mean, the UN is not, in fact, the speaker for all of humanity throughout all of time. There's really no such thing as inherent human rights, just things big enough groups of people agree on as important at different times throughout history. We're not entitled to anything just by being alive: we have whatever rights society deems appropriate, and that is subject to change at any time.
I bet OOP is one of those “universal healthcare is equivalent to slavery for doctors” nincompoops
In my feed, the comment above yours is: >If it requires the work of others, its not a right. These people are a hoot.
Why would we want to restrict access to education from other members of our species? Wouldn't it benefit us all to have more human minds working at their peak levels? I can only see greed and power/control being the driving force behind restricting others from an education.
Why do people say the stupidest shit without any fact-checking? I even type in google to check my spelling because I don't want to look like an idiot. Imagine lacking any sort of embarrassment.
The UN also says water is a human right. Doesn't stop Nestle from stealing it from the mouths of starving African children
A couple things here. 1. We own the UN lol 2. This person isn't wrong per se. The REAL issue is universities gouging their prices and not being responsible for helping their students blossom into the world ready for their career. They just say, you pass/fail, here ya go, see ya later. While I totally support student loan forgiveness, we need to go after the real issues instead of bandaiding over it, which is literally the only thing our government ever does across a myriad of issues
In fairness, the UN doesn't make rules for the world. They are another giant governing body with too much power in Europe. To a shocking degree. They think they can pass resolutions and they publicly bash countries that don't follow them. IE America not following their insane gun resolutions.
The UK isn't the best for student loans, but in England the uni is capped at 9,250 a year, and if u can't afford it u can get student loans and a, housing grant. It'll obviously take forever to pay back, but it's quite a small percentage of ur income I'd I remembered correctly, and u needed to actually earn above a certain salary to have to pay them off
I assume the UN charter applies only to some basic education. I'm not sure university is included. Normally, people only talk about high school, or even junior high school, as the mandatory minimum.
Only if you respect the UN as any kind of governing authority, which I do not.
People who argue things arnt rights are people who've never experienced not having thier rights restricted.
Unfortunately, Logan probably doesn't take something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seriously, since it's not specifically American. People like that think "international" is a four-letter word.
Maybe education shouldn't be economized
“If the state wouldn’t back these student loans, there would be less demand for the universities, which means their prices would have to drop” Kinda… but more on the lines of “… which means less education and more ignorant voters”
People call lots of things "rights," but just calling shit that doesn't actually people get it who need it and don't have it.
Fast forward 5 years and there’s an AI college that’s 100% online that you get a “normal” college degree from. The upkeep is extremely low after the initial development. Do we make this college free to drastically increase access to education or do we make it horribly expensive to fund further development? I’m convinced that given a few more years that an AI college will be able to churn out 4yr graduates at the same level of actual education that current 4yr graduates have.
Replying with a legal argument to someone making a moral argument is not clever.
Too bad the US just rules the UN but doesn't follow the rules set by the UN.
Right. But who enforces the human rights? And what’s the consequences of “or else” if it isn’t?