Tough love for the old

[Renegade]

But I'm arguing from the perspective that I think it's fair that everyone is responsible for paying for education and giving parents a break for the work that they do and the time that they take in their lives to produce children because I DO feel that this is a valuable contribution.

You seem to think that parents and society are "partners" in taking upon the responsibility for children. If that is true, how is it that parents choose to be parents whereas society has no say in the matter and should accept even the most unfit and irresponsible indivduals as parents simply because they choose that role?

[Kitch]

You seem to think that parents and society are "partners" in taking upon the responsibility for children. If that is true, how is it that parents choose to be parents whereas society has no say in the matter and should accept even the most unfit and irresponsible indivduals as parents simply because they choose that role?

I wouldn't refer to them as partners, but they are related.

I'm trying to argue this issue from the point of view that educating everyone is valuable to everyone. That's not even really how I feel... well, it is, but that's not the angle that I view it from. I believe that in a society like ours, where we have opportunities that other societies don't, education is a RIGHT for every human in this society.

You're right about your freedom being taken away as well. Your Jefferson quote is the perfect description of that. That's democracy. There are issues for which I am in the minority and I have had my freedom to choose taken away. That's the nature of a democratic society, especially one of this size where the interests of the citizens could very well be different by region. (I'm advocating for more localized governance).

In terms of education, if we agree that it is a right that everyone should have, then we're all responsible for providing it. And if there is a 51 - 49 split, then the majority decides. It REALLY does suck to be forced to live with a policy with which you disagree, but we all do. For example, I believe that insurance should be nationalized. I believe that the government should do more about public transit... improving it that is. I believe that we should adopt zero emissions legislation like California did in the 90s (before that was killed by big oil and big auto and the federal government in the US). I lose my freedom to breath clean air in MY society (I emphasize my because one could simply argue that I should move. But the same could be said for those who dislike paying for education for all).

[Renegade]

I'm trying to argue this issue from the point of view that educating everyone is valuable to everyone. That's not even really how I feel... well, it is, but that's not the angle that I view it from. I believe that in a society like ours, where we have opportunities that other societies don't, education is a RIGHT for every human in this society.

I don't consider it a "RIGHT" in the same way you do. I consider it an obligation that parents undertake when they choose to have kids the same way that parents have an obligation to feed and clothe those kids. Do you consider being clothed, fed, and sheltered a "right"?

You're right about your freedom being taken away as well. Your Jefferson quote is the perfect description of that. That's democracy. There are issues for which I am in the minority and I have had my freedom to choose taken away. That's the nature of a democratic society, especially one of this size where the interests of the citizens could very well be different by region. (I'm advocating for more localized governance).

In terms of education, if we agree that it is a right that everyone should have, then we're all responsible for providing it. And if there is a 51 - 49 split, then the majority decides. It REALLY does suck to be forced to live with a policy with which you disagree, but we all do. For example, I believe that insurance should be nationalized. I believe that the government should do more about public transit... improving it that is. I believe that we should adopt zero emissions legislation like California did in the 90s (before that was killed by big oil and big auto and the federal government in the US). I lose my freedom to breath clean air in MY society (I emphasize my because one could simply argue that I should move. But the same could be said for those who dislike paying for education for all).

You argument amounts simply to a statement that "that's democracy, so too bad". What I am saying is that even in a democratic society there should be policies implemented which maximize each individual's freedom, otherwise all your discussion that you want a policy that is "fair that everyone" is irrelevant. What it simply amounts to is that the majority can pass any policy which it is in it's self-interest and will do so regardless of it is "fair". In fact I think that is precisely how we have come to many of the programs now in place including education.

If your reasoning on why non-parents pay for education is simply that the majority believes that they should, then I agree but what I dispute is a rationalization which tries to justify it as "fair". Really, most people are parents or plan to be and it is in their self interest to support such a policy.

[independent]

I don't consider it a "RIGHT" in the same way you do. I consider it an obligation that parents undertake when they choose to have kids the same way that parents have an obligation to feed and clothe those kids. Do you consider being clothed, fed, and sheltered a "right"?

You argument amounts simply to a statement that "that's democracy, so too bad". What I am saying is that even in a democratic society there should be policies implemented which maximize each individual's freedom, otherwise all your discussion that you want a policy that is "fair that everyone" is irrelevant. What it simply amounts to is that the majority can pass any policy which it is in it's self-interest and will do so regardless of it is "fair". In fact I think that is precisely how we have come to many of the programs now in place including education.

If your reasoning on why non-parents pay for education is simply that the majority believes that they should, then I agree but what I dispute is a rationalization which tries to justify it as "fair". Really, most people are parents or plan to be and it is in their self interest to support such a policy.

The more education we give out kids the more productive society becomes and everyone benefits. Providing a good educational system is just a smart thing to do.

Edited October 14, 2008 by independent

[Renegade]

The more education we give out kids the more productive society becomes and everyone benefits. Providing a good educational system is just a smart thing to do.

It's not that simple. The productivity is not distributed equally. There is little relationship between who pays and how much they pay from the productivity benefit received. I can agree that education should be mandatory, but the way to distribute the cost is that it is recouped when a service is provided which adds value because of the educational component.

Further if your only justification is about "productivity", perhaps the way to optimal productivity is to invest in "smart" kids who will benefit most from education and "disinvest" in "dumb" kids.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Renegade

[Kitch]

I don't consider it a "RIGHT" in the same way you do. I consider it an obligation that parents undertake when they choose to have kids the same way that parents have an obligation to feed and clothe those kids. Do you consider being clothed, fed, and sheltered a "right"?

You argument amounts simply to a statement that "that's democracy, so too bad". What I am saying is that even in a democratic society there should be policies implemented which maximize each individual's freedom, otherwise all your discussion that you want a policy that is "fair that everyone" is irrelevant. What it simply amounts to is that the majority can pass any policy which it is in it's self-interest and will do so regardless of it is "fair". In fact I think that is precisely how we have come to many of the programs now in place including education.

If your reasoning on why non-parents pay for education is simply that the majority believes that they should, then I agree but what I dispute is a rationalization which tries to justify it as "fair". Really, most people are parents or plan to be and it is in their self interest to support such a policy.

My argument can be simplified in that way with the full understanding that I am on team 'punished' my fair share of the time. How could you, in this particular issue, accommodate both the majority and everyone else? The majority wants people to pay for education equally (I don't mean that as a truth... just for arguments sake). Everyone else wants the ability to choose whether or not they pay for education. The more people that choose to opt out, the more those in the majority have to pay. So really, one groups rights infringe on another groups rights... the choices that people make impact the lives of other people. So really, in a democratic society the best that you can do is try to reach a consensus between the different sides... and undoubtedly, some people will have to make concessions.

I too am not a fan of this... I feel that it's something that I have to accept because I can't think of an effective and fair alternative. Please, if you have one, explain how you can accommodate the desires of all people without infringing too much on the rights/desires of those who are not in the majority.

But back to the issue at hand. In fact, I do think that clothing and shelter should be rights, but I doubt that many people would agree with me on this... and it's just an opinion based on indignation. So, by placing the responsibility of education solely on the parents do you not infringe on the rights of the poor? It is a possible scenario that parents, through no fault of their own, end up in financial turmoil and are not able to pay for the education of their children. Should these children suffer? If the government set up a student loan program for pre-post-secondary education we'd have people paying off their debts for years, with interest probably, for something that is considered a quasi-right?

[Renegade]

How could you, in this particular issue, accommodate both the majority and everyone else? The majority wants people to pay for education equally (I don't mean that as a truth... just for arguments sake). Everyone else wants the ability to choose whether or not they pay for education. The more people that choose to opt out, the more those in the majority have to pay.

Of course as more people opt out, those who want to be subsidized will pay more. In effect they are paying their "true" cost. Why should that be an issue?

I too am not a fan of this... I feel that it's something that I have to accept because I can't think of an effective and fair alternative. Please, if you have one, explain how you can accommodate the desires of all people without infringing too much on the rights/desires of those who are not in the majority.

User-pay services.

But back to the issue at hand. In fact, I do think that clothing and shelter should be rights, but I doubt that many people would agree with me on this... and it's just an opinion based on indignation. So, by placing the responsibility of education solely on the parents do you not infringe on the rights of the poor? It is a possible scenario that parents, through no fault of their own, end up in financial turmoil and are not able to pay for the education of their children. Should these children suffer? If the government set up a student loan program for pre-post-secondary education we'd have people paying off their debts for years, with interest probably, for something that is considered a quasi-right?

infringe on the rights of the poor? Not at all. I don't see that the poor have the "right" to be provided for. Parents who cannot afford to provide for their kids, shouldn't have kids. Those who can afford to have kids, and choose to have them should have to enroll in some kind of "insurance" program that provides for the kids in the case of catestrophic event or finanical ruin.

The principle beneficiary of an education is the person being educated. The cost should either be borne by the people being educated or by their parents as a parental obligation. If in a loan program that they would be indebted for years is analogous to the rest of us being saddled with "education debt" for years and having to pay for it via education taxes. The debt goes somewhere anyway. The only question is why everyone has to bear the debt rather than the true beneficary?

Edited October 14, 2008 by Renegade

[Kitch]

Of course as more people opt out, those who want to be subsidized will pay more. In effect they are paying their "true" cost. Why should that be an issue?

User-pay services.

infringe on the rights of the poor? Not at all. I don't see that the poor have the "right" to be provided for. Parents who cannot afford to provide for their kids, shouldn't have kids. Those who can afford to have kids, and choose to have them should have to enroll in some kind of "insurance" program that provides for the kids in the case of catestrophic event or finanical ruin.

The principle beneficiary of an education is the person being educated. The cost should either be borne by the people being educated or by their parents as a parental obligation. If in a loan program that they would be indebted for years is analogous to the rest of us being saddled with "education debt" for years and having to pay for it via education taxes. The debt goes somewhere anyway. The only question is why everyone has to bear the debt rather than the true beneficary?

Wow. Okay, I was right with you up until this post. Now I can see that there is no argument that could be presented that will even budge your position because it has, in my opinion, little to do with education and everything to do with you not wanting to pay taxes.

It's not cheap to educate a single child. $20 000/year, to be... approximate. (3/4 of post secondary is subsidized by the government, resulting in the $5000/year tuition). How many children could working class parents afford to educate given that number? I guess they shouldn't have children huh? So then, only those with much disposable income should? OR, we could rely on charities to help out, based on donations... which are tax deductible. How selfish is our society? How blind are you to not be able to see the benefit... even if it's small!!! You see NO benefit???

You made a comment about my argument and the nature of democracy. I rebutted and you had nothing to say. Instead, what you did was assert the (hypothetical) minority position without acknowledging the (hypothetical) majority opinion. I'll ask again. Let's, for argument sake, say that 51% of the population agrees that everyone should pay for education of the young and 49% want the opportunity to decide whether they want to pay. Majority rules. Now, in a population of 30 million, that's just under 15 million people who's freedom to choose is taken away. What do you do? How do you both accommodate the decision made by the majority AND accommodate the minority? I'll say it again... If you give the minority the freedom of choice on this issue, then the majority's decision is necessarily denied. How do you resolve this? It's an issue, to answer your question, because the majority doesn't get what they want... and that's not democracy.

That's all hypothetical though... perhaps.

In the discussion of the poor you miss the point. But you never will accept or acknowledge the point, will you. The principle beneficiary of an education is the one receiving it, of course. But that is something that does INDEED benefit society as well, AND everyone should have the right to be literate. If you disagree with that, I'm all out of ideas to communicate my reasons for agreeing. It doesn't even seem to be a conversation about what rights people have, from your end. It's more of a discussion of why you aren't responsible for enabling those rights.

[Renegade]

It's not cheap to educate a single child. $20 000/year, to be... approximate. (3/4 of post secondary is subsidized by the government, resulting in the $5000/year tuition). How many children could working class parents afford to educate given that number? I guess they shouldn't have children huh? So then, only those with much disposable income should? OR, we could rely on charities to help out, based on donations... which are tax deductible.

Of course it is not cheap. I never said it was. Yes if a parent can't afford to have children including educate them, they shouldn't have them. BTW, your estimate of cost is only the post-secondary costs. Students who take on post-secondary education can and should take on those costs as in investment as it will pay back in increased earnings throughout their working lifetime.

How selfish is our society? How blind are you to not be able to see the benefit... even if it's small!!! You see NO benefit???

You personify society and there is no such entity. Society is made up of individuals and unless you let individuals make free choices about where to allocate their funds you have no idea of how selfish or selfless a society is.

Yes there is sometimes benefit for education. What I have repeatedly stated is that benefit should paid for at the time the beneift is realized. For example I realize benefit from my dentist's education at the time I use his services and I pay for it through the cost of the service. The same should be true of all other education.

I rebutted and you had nothing to say.

Huh? What rubuttal? I must have missed it? Point it out as I have plenty to say.

I'll ask again. Let's, for argument sake, say that 51% of the population agrees that everyone should pay for education of the young and 49% want the opportunity to decide whether they want to pay. Majority rules. Now, in a population of 30 million, that's just under 15 million people who's freedom to choose is taken away. What do you do? How do you both accommodate the decision made by the majority AND accommodate the minority?

The majority should not have unlimited power. IMV, the majority should not have the unilateral right to force choices on the minority. There are lots of cases where we protect the minority from the will of the majority, for example, even if the majority think that only a man-woman marriage should be recognized, the minoirty should have the right to not have that will imposed upon them. Unfortunately our system allows the majority to screw the minority at will. As far as fiscal spending, the system would need to change to prevent the majority from basically spending money of the minority without their consent. IMV the best way to do that is user-pay services. Those who benefit and freely choose that service woudl pay

I'll say it again... If you give the minority the freedom of choice on this issue, then the majority's decision is necessarily denied. How do you resolve this? It's an issue, to answer your question, because the majority doesn't get what they want... and that's not democracy.

A democracy exists even if the majority doesn't have unlimited power. See the charter of rights for examples.

In the discussion of the poor you miss the point. But you never will accept or acknowledge the point, will you. The principle beneficiary of an education is the one receiving it, of course. But that is something that does INDEED benefit society as well, AND everyone should have the right to be literate. If you disagree with that, I'm all out of ideas to communicate my reasons for agreeing. It doesn't even seem to be a conversation about what rights people have, from your end. It's more of a discussion of why you aren't responsible for enabling those rights.

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. It depends upon what you consider a "right" is. I certainly belive everyone should have access to education. I also believe that it is not a "societal" obligation to pay for that education. That should fall to parents. I'll give you an analogy. I believe that children should be fed healthy and nutrious food. In some indirect way society may benefit by having healthy members, however it the responsibilty of the parents to pay and supply food to the kids. Society simply passes laws which make it an enforcable parental obligation. If people cannot live up to that obligation they simply should not be parents.

Do you belive that indivduals should have the unrestricted "right" to have kids?

[Kitch]

BTW, your estimate of cost is only the post-secondary costs. .

I want to comment but don't have time now. I just want to say that I got that figure from a former super intendant from one of the GTA school boards when he was talking about the cost of education in the public system.

[Kitch]

BTW, your estimate of cost is only the post-secondary costs. .

I want to comment but don't have time now. I just want to say that I got that figure from a former super intendant from one of the GTA school boards when he was talking about the cost of education in the public system.

[Kitch]

Of course it is not cheap. I never said it was. Yes if a parent can't afford to have children including educate them, they shouldn't have them. BTW, your estimate of cost is only the post-secondary costs. Students who take on post-secondary education can and should take on those costs as in investment as it will pay back in increased earnings throughout their working lifetime.

I WISH that was more true than it is! It depends on the field your post secondary education gets you in to. As a teacher, I'm lucky. But had I stayed in research I would have made relatively little money. Back to the topic at hand...

You personify society and there is no such entity. Society is made up of individuals and unless you let individuals make free choices about where to allocate their funds you have no idea of how selfish or selfless a society is.

zeitgeist: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era

This word wouldn't exist if society couldn't have a 'mood'. But, I did make a huge generalization. I'm often guilty of that... especially when the tone of my voice can't be heard to give people an idea of the level of sincerity in my hyperbolic words.

What I mean is that some people can be so selfish. This conversation, being one of the more logical ones, is a drop in the bucket of the conversations I've had with people who complain about having to pay taxes. Who LIKES paying taxes? Nobody. Who likes getting health care, education, garbage pickup, maintained roads, clean water... all the people who dislike paying taxes. You are discussing one particular program that you don't want to have to pay for... that's not to say I know anything about your outlook on all taxes... but I wouldn't be the least surprised to hear somebody out there cry about having to pay for water because they follow the mantra 'if it's brown flush it down, if it's yellow let it mellow.'

Yes there is sometimes benefit for education. What I have repeatedly stated is that benefit should paid for at the time the beneift is realized. For example I realize benefit from my dentist's education at the time I use his services and I pay for it through the cost of the service. The same should be true of all other education.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember you saying that there is a benefit. I'm often wrong.

Well, I think there's much to investigate about the effect of your proposal on prices and on an individual's ability to 'get ahead' (I hate that phrase... as if I'm competing with everyone out there in terms of standard of living!) because of the debt they may be in after paying for that many years of education. But, I don't really want to go down that road because I think it's irrelevant. I see education (up to a certain level) as a human right and you do not. That's an impasse, I believe.

Huh? What rubuttal? I must have missed it? Point it out as I have plenty to say.

The majority should not have unlimited power. IMV, the majority should not have the unilateral right to force choices on the minority. There are lots of cases where we protect the minority from the will of the majority, for example, even if the majority think that only a man-woman marriage should be recognized, the minoirty should have the right to not have that will imposed upon them. Unfortunately our system allows the majority to screw the minority at will. As far as fiscal spending, the system would need to change to prevent the majority from basically spending money of the minority without their consent. IMV the best way to do that is user-pay services. Those who benefit and freely choose that service woudl pay

A democracy exists even if the majority doesn't have unlimited power. See the charter of rights for examples.

My rebuttal was about the nature of democracy. And you acknowledged it in this post. Although, your basic argument is, as you say, the majority shouldn't have unlimited power. Well, the majority represents different people on different issues... ideally. I'm not referring to a majority government. In the hypotheticals of this conversation, we could be referring to a group of 20 people who have diverse opinions about a number of issues. So, to use this for what I said before, let's say 11 people vote for publicly funded education and 9 against. The 9 want to be able to choose themselves, but the nature of democracy doesn't allow for this or else the whole concept is useless. This is not to say that the same 11 people should get their way on any issue. Maybe on abortion the group votes 15 - 5, maybe on legalization of marijuana it's 13-7. So the 'majority' having unlimited power is a bit off the mark as the 'majority' is comprised of, presumably, different people each time.

On the marriage question, do we know what the majority opinion is? Let's assume that the majority is against same-sex marriage. The will of the majority would be to impose something on the minority which does not affect the majority. It's nothing more than a religious belief that tries to limit marriage. In our debate, if the minority was allowed to opt out of funding public education, the majority is affected. That is not the case in same sex marriage. I'm about as sure as I can be that there can be no valid argument against that. (But, I'm often wrong!).

The point is, a decision is not made democratically if the majority opinion doesn't prevail. There are situations, such as the one you brought up, that there is no valid reason to even put it to a vote... if two people want to marry, then who is ANYBODY to deny that? When we get in to polygamy, I don't know that we have a right to deny people that either... if everyone is a willing participant (maybe it's up to society to determine who's willing and what constitutes willing... or maybe we're not), then what's the problem? Maybe I'm a blaspheme for saying that, but the point is clear, I think. You can't deny the majority or else it's not democracy. Sometimes you can accommodate the minority without affecting/infringing on rights of the majority, sometimes you can't. In the case of public education, the majority, if it was ever put to a vote (referendum?), the majority would necessarily have to rule.

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. It depends upon what you consider a "right" is. I certainly belive everyone should have access to education. I also believe that it is not a "societal" obligation to pay for that education. That should fall to parents. I'll give you an analogy. I believe that children should be fed healthy and nutrious food. In some indirect way society may benefit by having healthy members, however it the responsibilty of the parents to pay and supply food to the kids. Society simply passes laws which make it an enforcable parental obligation. If people cannot live up to that obligation they simply should not be parents.

Do you belive that indivduals should have the unrestricted "right" to have kids?

Decent analogy. The problem is you can't compare education and food. Food is as diverse as peoples' preferences for it. And few people would feel comfortable with the government being in control of food supply. Many would see it as a form of control over the population. The same could be said for education... in both cases, and I won't deny it. It's just easier to mass produce 'educated' kids and not have it viewed as a form of control. Also, what people want to learn is often accommodated for in public education... so they say. The preference a lot of people have in terms of education is more focused on excluding certain subject matter rather than including some. Inclusion is sometimes accommodated but our education system makes (or tries to) people eat their intellectual vegetables.

But, education and food are very different metaphorical fruits. So your analogy doesn't hold.

Should people have the right to have kids? I don't know. We're really talking about the rights of the parents and the rights of the child when we go in this direction. AND, if we deny people the right to have children, we're really denying people the right to have sex unless they meet certain conditions. Or we could make people take birth control pills unless they and/or their mate make a certain amount of money.

The reality is that people do have the right to have kids but have an obligation to provide the kids with a certain standard of care or else the kids are taken into state care. What else can we do?

What's funny is that this part of the conversation has been framed from the point of view of people who may have to pay for another couple's child. Not from the perspective of the child who is relatively helpless in some respects. I think it's clear that, while it may not be a person's right to have a child, you can't easily prevent that from happening. And if it does, you can't make the child suffer the consequences. And that child will suffer consequences in a lot of ways if the parents are punished. So, do we let a kid suffer because of those in society who are selfish? The expected answer is... let that be taken care of by charity. I want to choose whether or not I care about that child's life.

To throw another question your way, can you not see the detriment to society, to the lives of everyone, when people take the selfish approach?

[Renegade]

I WISH that was more true than it is! It depends on the field your post secondary education gets you in to. As a teacher, I'm lucky. But had I stayed in research I would have made relatively little money. Back to the topic at hand...

I made some unstated assumptions when I made that statement. I assumed that those who invest their time and money in education, see to have a payback either monetary or in intangible benefits. For the most part where monetary benefits (aka a higher salary) is sought the choice of field is restricted to those which will actually pay back the investment. A further disadvantage of subsidizing education is that it distorts rational choice. If the person recieving the education pays only a small fraction of the cost, they look at the payback only based upon the cost they themselves have incurred and not on the overall cost incurred. Thus you see behaviour where people have degrees with little or no value.

zeitgeist: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era

This word wouldn't exist if society couldn't have a 'mood'. But, I did make a huge generalization. I'm often guilty of that... especially when the tone of my voice can't be heard to give people an idea of the level of sincerity in my hyperbolic words.

What I mean is that some people can be so selfish. This conversation, being one of the more logical ones, is a drop in the bucket of the conversations I've had with people who complain about having to pay taxes. Who LIKES paying taxes? Nobody. Who likes getting health care, education, garbage pickup, maintained roads, clean water... all the people who dislike paying taxes. You are discussing one particular program that you don't want to have to pay for... that's not to say I know anything about your outlook on all taxes... but I wouldn't be the least surprised to hear somebody out there cry about having to pay for water because they follow the mantra 'if it's brown flush it down, if it's yellow let it mellow.'

I am not disputing that people can be selfish, just as some people can be selfless. I don't think policy can be made upon whether people feel selfish or selfless. What I am advocating is that people pay their fair share for services they consume. The dispute is what is considered their "fair" share. If I can be convinced of the indirect benefit of education beyond the person being educated, I certainly agree that that the cost should be allocated according to the benefit realized. A "selfish" argument would be one which rationalized mininimizing any cost incured regardless of the benefit realized.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember you saying that there is a benefit. I'm often wrong.

I'm not sure if I have clarified it before, so let me do so now. I believe there may benefits realized at two levels. One at in individual level and the other at the group (societal) level. What I mean at an individual level is that you get a higher level of sevice from your interaction with someone who is educated instead of someone who is not. I beleive that the cost of this beneift should be passed on at the point of interaction. (eg at the time the dentist renders you a service you are paying a price which includes the cost of him being educated). The individual who has been educated also realizes benefit at the time of interaction, because he gets paid for his service and presumably gets paid more because he is educated.

The other benefit is the group benefit. You have not articulated what exactly the group benefit is. The principle benefit I see is that an educated population is less prone to civil unrest and crime than an uneducated one. But here the thing, if parents by virtue of having kids are exposing society to the additional risk of civil unrest and crime, then shouldn't they also be the ones to bear the cost of exposing the rest of society to that risk?

Well, I think there's much to investigate about the effect of your proposal on prices and on an individual's ability to 'get ahead' (I hate that phrase... as if I'm competing with everyone out there in terms of standard of living!) because of the debt they may be in after paying for that many years of education. But, I don't really want to go down that road because I think it's irrelevant. I see education (up to a certain level) as a human right and you do not. That's an impasse, I believe.

Well, you haven't really defined what you mean by a "right". It would seem that the only reason it is a "right" is if enough people think it is, but there is no objective way to determine what is a right and what is not. Simply put without any objective definition of what is a right, rights can be given or taken at will.

My rebuttal was about the nature of democracy. And you acknowledged it in this post. Although, your basic argument is, as you say, the majority shouldn't have unlimited power. Well, the majority represents different people on different issues... ideally. I'm not referring to a majority government. In the hypotheticals of this conversation, we could be referring to a group of 20 people who have diverse opinions about a number of issues. So, to use this for what I said before, let's say 11 people vote for publicly funded education and 9 against. The 9 want to be able to choose themselves, but the nature of democracy doesn't allow for this or else the whole concept is useless. This is not to say that the same 11 people should get their way on any issue. Maybe on abortion the group votes 15 - 5, maybe on legalization of marijuana it's 13-7. So the 'majority' having unlimited power is a bit off the mark as the 'majority' is comprised of, presumably, different people each time.

So what? If enough of the majority have a common view, they can impose it on the minority, is that what you are saying. In your example above, if 11 people vote that the other 9 should be their slaves, should they be allowed to do so in a democracy? Why not, after all isn't it majority rule?

On the marriage question, do we know what the majority opinion is? Let's assume that the majority is against same-sex marriage. The will of the majority would be to impose something on the minority which does not affect the majority. It's nothing more than a religious belief that tries to limit marriage. In our debate, if the minority was allowed to opt out of funding public education, the majority is affected. That is not the case in same sex marriage. I'm about as sure as I can be that there can be no valid argument against that. (But, I'm often wrong!).

You didn't address the point. In your view of democracy what prevents a majority on imposing a standard on a minority, even if it doesn't affect the majority?

The point is, a decision is not made democratically if the majority opinion doesn't prevail. There are situations, such as the one you brought up, that there is no valid reason to even put it to a vote... if two people want to marry, then who is ANYBODY to deny that? When we get in to polygamy, I don't know that we have a right to deny people that either... if everyone is a willing participant (maybe it's up to society to determine who's willing and what constitutes willing... or maybe we're not), then what's the problem? Maybe I'm a blaspheme for saying that, but the point is clear, I think. You can't deny the majority or else it's not democracy. Sometimes you can accommodate the minority without affecting/infringing on rights of the majority, sometimes you can't. In the case of public education, the majority, if it was ever put to a vote (referendum?), the majority would necessarily have to rule.

In the case of education the effect of the majority is that they want to pass of part of the cost on to the minority. I don't want to sidetrack this discussion, but that is one of the real problems of a democracy. The majority, when they vote as a block are represented 100% of the time and the minority 0%. Since parents or would-be parents are the majority, they will always have their way regardless of any other rationalization. They could even vote that single people pay for the education of all kids if they so chose.

Decent analogy. The problem is you can't compare education and food. Food is as diverse as peoples' preferences for it. And few people would feel comfortable with the government being in control of food supply. Many would see it as a form of control over the population. The same could be said for education... in both cases, and I won't deny it. It's just easier to mass produce 'educated' kids and not have it viewed as a form of control. Also, what people want to learn is often accommodated for in public education... so they say. The preference a lot of people have in terms of education is more focused on excluding certain subject matter rather than including some. Inclusion is sometimes accommodated but our education system makes (or tries to) people eat their intellectual vegetables.

Sorry, but minor details aside, I don't see a real difference. People's level of comfort is related to their expectations. The sole point is that with food, parents are responsible for the cost to provide it to their kids. They are even further responsible for the choice of food. Even if you take away the choice of content for education from parents, you shouldnt' take away the responsiblity for cost just as with food.

But, education and food are very different metaphorical fruits. So your analogy doesn't hold.

So what is your suggestion of an appropriate analogy? I use the food analogy because it is necessary, easy to see the benefit, and it is completely accepted that parents are responsible for providing this as an obligation to their kids.

Should people have the right to have kids? I don't know. We're really talking about the rights of the parents and the rights of the child when we go in this direction. AND, if we deny people the right to have children, we're really denying people the right to have sex unless they meet certain conditions. Or we could make people take birth control pills unless they and/or their mate make a certain amount of money.

The right to have kids is really at the heart of this discussion. I maintain that if you want to assign "rights" to kids than the obligation to fulfill those rights should fall to the parents as they make the decision to have kids. Conversely if you alternatively want to assign some of the obligations to society to fulfill those rights, then you should also assign to society the abiltiy to decide who should be parents.

The reality is that people do have the right to have kids but have an obligation to provide the kids with a certain standard of care or else the kids are taken into state care. What else can we do?

Actually our standards are far too low. Unless you abuse your kids the state cannot take them into its care. The obligations of the parents should be in line with the minimium level of care we expect for the kids to have a reasonable chance in life. If we believe that it takes feeding, clothing, education, and other forms of obligation, then the state should enforce that obligation on parents. Moreover, parents who are likely not to fulfill that responsiblity should be prohibited from having kids.

What's funny is that this part of the conversation has been framed from the point of view of people who may have to pay for another couple's child. Not from the perspective of the child who is relatively helpless in some respects. I think it's clear that, while it may not be a person's right to have a child, you can't easily prevent that from happening.

Well, you can't easily prevent someone from driving either if they really wanted to, but society has implemented mechanisms of reward/punishment so that only those it considers qualified are permitted to drive.

And if it does, you can't make the child suffer the consequences. And that child will suffer consequences in a lot of ways if the parents are punished. So, do we let a kid suffer because of those in society who are selfish? The expected answer is... let that be taken care of by charity. I want to choose whether or not I care about that child's life.

Actually there are likely serveral options. First there is no shortage of willing and qualified parents who would happly adopt a child and likely give that child a better upbringing than an unqualifed parent. Second an unqualifed potential parent should not necessarily be allowed to bring an accidental pregnancy to term. If people were held accountable for the kids they had I suspect that there were far fewer kids brought into undesirable circumstances.

Do the kids not suffer when they are brought into this world by an unqualified and ill-prepared parent? Sometimes that parent is barely a child themselves and by NOT enforcing standards for parents you greatly increase the overall suffering kids endure.

To throw another question your way, can you not see the detriment to society, to the lives of everyone, when people take the selfish approach?

No I do not because as I've said before, policy is not made on people being selfish or selfless. Policies are enacted because they are in mutual interest of the parties concerned. Virutally all policy's are "selfish" because someone beneifts and those who benefit tend to support that policy. Where enough people support the policy it is implemented. You could view public education as a "selfish" policy in that parents support and implemnent it because it allows them to off-load most ot the cost of their parental obligations.