Should School Attendance be Compulsory?

[United States of Natan]

Yes schooling should be compulsory till 18. Education should not be something left to the free market. Schooling shouldnt be about supply and demand and being competitive. What's to stop an area from saying oh we don't like x group so therefore we won't build any schools in their area? Education is a right of all.

But why would they do that? A large inspiration for the market to build a school would be to make a profit and employ people.

In farmlands, at parts where companies own the large farms, or towns where some company's factories are the primary employer, you think they'll want to educate their workers? If their workers are educated, they leave to get better jobs, and if more and more leave, no more workers.

The free market shouldn't dictate who gets education, nor should people have to pay companies for education, especially when they can't afford it. Public education systems give everyone the same opportunities, and allow them to move up in the world. In fact, I'd argue for the abolishment of private schools in many cases.

[Industrial Virginia]

But why would they do that? A large inspiration for the market to build a school would be to make a profit and employ people.

In farmlands, at parts where companies own the large farms, you think they'll want to educate their workers? If their workers are educated, they leave to get better jobs, and if more and more leave, no more workers.

People who are farmers are usually by choice so. If they weren't, they would sell their farms. Personal experience as I live near Ohio and West Virginia.

[Thermodolia]

In farmlands, at parts where companies own the large farms, you think they'll want to educate their workers? If their workers are educated, they leave to get better jobs, and if more and more leave, no more workers.

People who are farmers are usually by choice so. If they weren't, they would sell their farms. Personal experience as I live near Ohio and West Virginia.

That's no where near the vast majority of farmers. Also the kids would have no choice if they grew up and where told by the free market that this is their life.

[Industrial Virginia]

People who are farmers are usually by choice so. If they weren't, they would sell their farms. Personal experience as I live near Ohio and West Virginia.

That's no where near the vast majority of farmers. Also the kids would have no choice if they grew up and where told by the free market that this is their life.

Ok, but you're wrong. I interact with farmers on a daily basis. I don't quite understand your second point.

[United States of Natan]

In farmlands, at parts where companies own the large farms, you think they'll want to educate their workers? If their workers are educated, they leave to get better jobs, and if more and more leave, no more workers.

People who are farmers are usually by choice so. If they weren't, they would sell their farms. Personal experience as I live near Ohio and West Virginia.

Let me break this down for you:

Poor worker works for big company. Big company doesn't let education into town. Worker remains poor, hates his job, but cannot leave, because it's the only job he's got, and he needs to support his family. Moving would simply cost too much money. As such, he keeps his job, but can't leave, and without education, certainly can't get a new one.

[Bressen]

2. A sale tax isn't going to cause a substantial increase in the cost of goods if that sales tax is used only to fund the essentials of government.
3. Yeah, no. I'd rather not embrace a pseudo-Libertarian.
4. Why wouldn't it work? People are pro-taxes because they value the services the government provides, so they've no excuse to not voluntary donate to these services other than the fact they genuinely don't care about these services or only want everyone else's to fund these services whilst getting them for free; "I like taxes, but not for me".

1. If you remove income tax, everything will be risen to compensate.
Why? Our government already has.
2. Because people are greedy and would rather keep their money, and in a society where that's a perfectly viable option (If one could actually survive for more than a few days off paper), no one's going to give their money away. Until we eliminate scarcity this will always be a problem.

1. Not if you reduce the amount of spending the government does, which is what I said. You lower the budget the government needs so it can sustain itself solely from a sales tax.
2. So your solution to people being greedy is to have the government forcefully take their wealth away under the threat of throwing them in a cage if they don't, as opposed to just making it less socially acceptable to be greedy? No one's tackled this point so far, and have instead diverted to the consequences of the government not taking peoples money as opposed to the fact that the government taking this money by force is fundamentally immoral. Extortion is wrong, and the governments ends do not justify the means of using it.

[Thermodolia]

That's no where near the vast majority of farmers. Also the kids would have no choice if they grew up and where told by the free market that this is their life.

Ok, but you're wrong. I interact with farmers on a daily basis. I don't quite understand your second point.

It's all they've ever known, with the free market in charge of education they wouldn't need for the kids of farmers to have an education in anything but farming because the free market needs farmers.

[Industrial Virginia]

Ok, but you're wrong. I interact with farmers on a daily basis. I don't quite understand your second point.

It's all they've ever known, with the free market in charge of education they wouldn't need for the kids of farmers to have an education in anything but farming because the free market needs farmers.

Ok, yeah, but with public school why haven't they moved out of being farmers anyway? Since, you know, they're already getting education and all..

[Kilobugya]

People would still have access to education. There would actually, left to the free market, be advertisements for education that would then help people make the decision for getting in school.

That just doesn't make any sense. You'll ask a 6 years old or a 10 years old to chose to go to school or not (and to which kind of school) based on advertising ? And you seriously think that would work well ? Or you're asking for parents to chose, meaning the person concerned (the kid) doesn't have more freedom than if it's the state that forces them, but there is much more inequality, because children born in families with a high level of education and income will be able to chose much more efficiently than those who were not.

As for advertising... you know that advertising is all about manipulating people, making them believe things which aren't true, calling to primitive emotions ? Part of education should actually be how to resist advertising and similar forms of manipulation !

On the topic of the parents choice, of course it would be the parents choice due to them having the money.

Them having the money is only an issue if you've an inegalitarian, each-for-his-own, law of the jungle system. If you live in a civilized place, since children are not responsible of having poor or rich parents, everyone receives quality education, regardless of who has the money. Making the parents absolute dictators over their children just because they have the money makes as much as sense as giving stock owners absolute power over the economy (and workers, customers, the environment, ...) because they have the money - but wait, that's seriously what you are proposing right ?

If the parents actually wanted to have their child have a decent life they would indeed send them to school whether with loans or money from parents. A thing we addressed earlier in the debate is that you can't waste tax dollars on people that don't want to be educated.

The parents not wanting, or not being able (since they themselves lack education and money) to send their children to good schools is not related to children not wanting to learn. There are many lower class children who want to be educated more than anything else, and there are many spoiled brats from rich families who don't care about getting education because they know they'll inherit their parents wealth and contact network anyway. You're again confusing the child and the parents.

[Calladan]

You can't make an informed choice if you have no education, so you can't invoke freedom of choice to get an education or not. Anyway, children (ie, below 16 or 18) don't make decisions by themselves, it's their parents who make decisions for them, so it's not "freedom of choice" for the involved person, and having parents who might not have the child's best interest in mind, or who can be religious biggots, or who can be subject of strong economical pressure to not send their children to school, or who may not realize the importance of education due to themselves not having a sufficient one, or ... decide is not the best option.

So yes, school should be mandatory at least from 4 to 16, much better from 3 to 18. And to public schooling, or at the very least to private schools with state-enforced curriculum, no "we don't teach evolution" or similar madness. Everyone must learn the basics on how the world works, and that includes evolution.

People would still have access to education. There would actually, left to the free market, be advertisements for education that would then help people make the decision for getting in school. On the topic of the parents choice, of course it would be the parents choice due to them having the money. There might be loans that could be provided to the student, but the main sum of money would come from the parents. If the parents actually wanted to have their child have a decent life they would indeed send them to school whether with loans or money from parents. A thing we addressed earlier in the debate is that you can't waste tax dollars on people that don't want to be educated. Therefore at least we should have it at least that tax dollars are used for people that actually want to go to public school. OR, we can let the free market control the education system and give people the ability to NEVER have wasted tax dollars and for there to be a choice.

Also, evolution is a real theory (coming from a Christian) it's just the way it's taught is wrong.

You are presupposing that the parents can afford this. Whether it is a loan or the parents have the money it assumes that the parents have the means to pay.

And if the parents don't have the money, then what? The kids don't get to go to school?

So education becomes the plaything of the rich, and the poor kids go down the mines. Just like the good old days before the liberal governments, the progressive governments, the social minded governments made it their goal to ensure every child gets an education regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

As someone who pays quite a lot of tax (relatively speaking) I would much rather waste some of it on kids who have no desire to learn than see education go back to the state it was in the 1800s, because that was just a fucking appalling mess and I would not wish it on my worst enemies. Or the children of my worst enemies in this case.

[Industrial Virginia]

People would still have access to education. There would actually, left to the free market, be advertisements for education that would then help people make the decision for getting in school. On the topic of the parents choice, of course it would be the parents choice due to them having the money. There might be loans that could be provided to the student, but the main sum of money would come from the parents. If the parents actually wanted to have their child have a decent life they would indeed send them to school whether with loans or money from parents. A thing we addressed earlier in the debate is that you can't waste tax dollars on people that don't want to be educated. Therefore at least we should have it at least that tax dollars are used for people that actually want to go to public school. OR, we can let the free market control the education system and give people the ability to NEVER have wasted tax dollars and for there to be a choice.

Also, evolution is a real theory (coming from a Christian) it's just the way it's taught is wrong.

You are presupposing that the parents can afford this. Whether it is a loan or the parents have the money it assumes that the parents have the means to pay.

And if the parents don't have the money, then what? The kids don't get to go to school?

So education becomes the plaything of the rich, and the poor kids go down the mines. Just like the good old days before the liberal governments, the progressive governments, the social minded governments made it their goal to ensure every child gets an education regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

As someone who pays quite a lot of tax (relatively speaking) I would much rather waste some of it on kids who have no desire to learn than see education go back to the state it was in the 1800s, because that was just a fucking appalling mess and I would not wish it on my worst enemies. Or the children of my worst enemies in this case.

I can respect your bottom paragraph, but what you don't realize is that the prime function of education should be to get people ready for working for the rest of their life which will then provide people with enough money for living wage and being able to afford schooling for their children. Capitalism will always have a lower class, but at least it isn't everyone in the lower class as in if we become a socialist country. That's basically what it comes all down to, work and reproduction.

[Tee Googly Coffee Me]

People would still have access to education. There would actually, left to the free market, be advertisements for education that would then help people make the decision for getting in school. On the topic of the parents choice, of course it would be the parents choice due to them having the money. There might be loans that could be provided to the student, but the main sum of money would come from the parents. If the parents actually wanted to have their child have a decent life they would indeed send them to school whether with loans or money from parents. A thing we addressed earlier in the debate is that you can't waste tax dollars on people that don't want to be educated. Therefore at least we should have it at least that tax dollars are used for people that actually want to go to public school. OR, we can let the free market control the education system and give people the ability to NEVER have wasted tax dollars and for there to be a choice.

Also, evolution is a real theory (coming from a Christian) it's just the way it's taught is wrong.

You are presupposing that the parents can afford this. Whether it is a loan or the parents have the money it assumes that the parents have the means to pay.

And if the parents don't have the money, then what? The kids don't get to go to school?

So education becomes the plaything of the rich, and the poor kids go down the mines. Just like the good old days before the liberal governments, the progressive governments, the social minded governments made it their goal to ensure every child gets an education regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

As someone who pays quite a lot of tax (relatively speaking) I would much rather waste some of it on kids who have no desire to learn than see education go back to the state it was in the 1800s, because that was just a fucking appalling mess and I would not wish it on my worst enemies. Or the children of my worst enemies in this case.

So really this boils down to morals. This argument is essentially the rights of the individual vs the wellbeing of the group and whichever is deemed more important.

[Tee Googly Coffee Me]

I know I am very against taxation and I don't want the money I bust my butt to earn going to waste on kids who don't care about their education and are only there because they have to be.

[Industrial Virginia]

You are presupposing that the parents can afford this. Whether it is a loan or the parents have the money it assumes that the parents have the means to pay.

And if the parents don't have the money, then what? The kids don't get to go to school?

So education becomes the plaything of the rich, and the poor kids go down the mines. Just like the good old days before the liberal governments, the progressive governments, the social minded governments made it their goal to ensure every child gets an education regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

As someone who pays quite a lot of tax (relatively speaking) I would much rather waste some of it on kids who have no desire to learn than see education go back to the state it was in the 1800s, because that was just a fucking appalling mess and I would not wish it on my worst enemies. Or the children of my worst enemies in this case.

So really this boils down to morals. This argument is essentially the rights of the individual vs the wellbeing of the group and whichever is deemed more important.

And honestly the well being of a group is much more valuable. And before you say "Well that's why socialism should be imposed!" Socialism just creates one class in poverty. It is much more beneficial to have some rich people, a lot of normal people, and minuscule amounts of poor people over one class of poor people.

[Bressen]

So really this boils down to morals. This argument is essentially the rights of the individual vs the wellbeing of the group and whichever is deemed more important.

And honestly the well being of a group is much more valuable. And before you say "Well that's why socialism should be imposed!" Socialism just creates one class in poverty. It is much more beneficial to have some rich people, a lot of normal people, and minuscule amounts of poor people over one class of poor people.

Value is pretty subjective, and only really becomes objective when you measure it against a criteria that you subjectively deem to be important.

[Calladan]

You are presupposing that the parents can afford this. Whether it is a loan or the parents have the money it assumes that the parents have the means to pay.

And if the parents don't have the money, then what? The kids don't get to go to school?

So education becomes the plaything of the rich, and the poor kids go down the mines. Just like the good old days before the liberal governments, the progressive governments, the social minded governments made it their goal to ensure every child gets an education regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

As someone who pays quite a lot of tax (relatively speaking) I would much rather waste some of it on kids who have no desire to learn than see education go back to the state it was in the 1800s, because that was just a fucking appalling mess and I would not wish it on my worst enemies. Or the children of my worst enemies in this case.

I can respect your bottom paragraph, but what you don't realize is that the prime function of education should be to get people ready for working for the rest of their life which will then provide people with enough money for living wage and being able to afford schooling for their children. Capitalism will always have a lower class, but at least it isn't everyone in the lower class as in if we become a socialist country. That's basically what it comes all down to, work and reproduction.

Yeah - no. I agree education should be there to get people ready for life. But it should be there to inspire those who want to be inspired, and to (at the very least) provide a solid foundation for everyone else. It is in the best interests of the entire country to ensure the next generation is educated - not just the parents of the children (if you get what I mean).

A set of parents will have a limited number of kids. And those kids might be dumb-asses, or might be rocket scientists. The parents have no way of knowing before they send their kids off to school. And it doesn't run in families - you can be a genius and have a kid who eats soap, or you can be a total fuckwhit and give birth to the next Einstein. And there is the natural selection angle - on the day your kid turns 16 s/he could get his by a meteor or eaten by a shark. You just don't know.

So a single set of parents can not raise enough kids to provide the next generation of doctors, nurses, x-ray technicians, surgeons, lawyers, judges, barristers, car mechanics, road builders, shop assistants, telephone repair people, plumbers, police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, airline pilots, baggage check in assistants, video shop rental assistants....... you get the idea. (And we haven't even got to the artistic side of things yet - art, music, tv producers, movie directors, writers - I could go on, but I won't) No one family is going to provide the next generation of society - it will be every family. And no one family is going to know what their child (or children) will grow up to be.

So I would argue it is the best interest of everyone to ensure every child gets the best education possible, because then the next generation will be the best it can be (at least in theory - I realise practicality might get in the way, but lets just stick with theory for now). That way when the parents all grow old, and need people to take care of them, there will be a generation to do it. There will be police officers, doctors, shop assistants, computer technicians etc and so on.

And here's the best part (well - what I think is the best part) - I don't have kids. But I am contributing to the education of ALL the other children in the country (all the ones who aren't being educated privately at least) for much the same reason. It is in my best interest to ensure the next generation is educated because they will be the ones looking after me when I get old. My kids are clearly not going to do it - mostly because they don't exist.

Don't misunderstand - I entirely get that capitalism doesn't mean everyone is rich. But I don't want everyone to be rich. I don't even want to be rich myself. I just don't think that whether your child gets a decent education - the same education as the child next door - should depend on how much money you have. I think that it is the job of society to educate the young, up until they are 16, at which point they can decide if they want to learn more or if they want to go out and get a job. And I think it is the job of society to fund that education because - as I said - it is in all of our best interests to do it.

Also - a living wage is (currently) just that. A wage you can live on. Not a wage you can live on and afford to send your kids to school. So unless it gets vastly increased (by several thousand pounds per month) I don't thin your plan will work. But that's kind of incidental.

[Calladan]

So really this boils down to morals. This argument is essentially the rights of the individual vs the wellbeing of the group and whichever is deemed more important.

No, not really. My argument is no one can get by being an individual. If you don't believe me, then just think about this :-

Imagine you get your hand hacked off by a lunatic with an axe. You are lying on the ground bleeding out.

At some point, you are going to need the help of someone else. A friendly passer by who calls an ambulance. The paramedic who stops you bleeding out and drives you to hospital. The Casualty doctor who does something medical that I am not sure about (because I am not a Casualty doctor!). The surgeon who sews your hand back on. Several nurses who look after you during your recovery period.

All of those people would have needed educating and training and paying. Which - in the UK - is done via the taxpayer. Which would be you (if you lived in the UK).

So while you can claim the rights of the individual are more important, no one is an island, and eventually - at some point - you may well need the help of the group.

All I am I saying is that I would rather the group was educated and trained and paid. And if I have to pay taxes to ensure that, so be it.

[Bressen]

So really this boils down to morals. This argument is essentially the rights of the individual vs the wellbeing of the group and whichever is deemed more important.

No, not really. My argument is no one can get by being an individual. If you don't believe me, then just think about this :-

Imagine you get your hand hacked off by a lunatic with an axe. You are lying on the ground bleeding out.

At some point, you are going to need the help of someone else. A friendly passer by who calls an ambulance. The paramedic who stops you bleeding out and drives you to hospital. The Casualty doctor who does something medical that I am not sure about (because I am not a Casualty doctor!). The surgeon who sews your hand back on. Several nurses who look after you during your recovery period.

All of those people would have needed educating and training and paying. Which - in the UK - is done via the taxpayer. Which would be you (if you lived in the UK).

So while you can claim the rights of the individual are more important, no one is an island, and eventually - at some point - you may well need the help of the group.

All I am I saying is that I would rather the group was educated and trained and paid. And if I have to pay taxes to ensure that, so be it.

But you don't need taxes to ensure any of this, you just think you do. Not to mention, you've no evidence to suggest that any of education or training or payment of anyone of these individuals involved in the scenario is due to taxes; they could have easily studied for their profession privately or their education could have been paid for by hospitals who need more doctors, paramedics, surgeons and nurses.

[Diopolis]

Not compulsory enough. I live in the US too m8. College should be free and compulsory.

As I said before; education isn't just a right, it is a necessity. This way we don't end up with Presidents who deny science.

Trump and Bush were/are both far better educated than the national average.

[Calladan]

As I said before; education isn't just a right, it is a necessity. This way we don't end up with Presidents who deny science.

Trump and Bush were/are both far better educated than the national average.

That's really not a valid response. Because when you look at Trump's public statements in regard to science, he does not do well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... c4169cfee5

Vaccinations and Autism - he claims there is still a link. That has been widely debunked as utter bollocks by several studies. The fact he is repeating this claim borders on criminal.

Climate Change - he says that man made climate change is a myth. Hundreds of U.S. researchers, including 30 Nobel laureates, have criticised him for this stance. And while I would not dare to suggest 30 Nobel laureates might have a better education than President Trump, I think that 30 Nobel laureates HAVE a better education than President Trump. Also nearly all actively publishing scientists in the field (according to peer reviewed studies) say that global warming in the past century is a consequence of human activity.

Wind Farms - his claims that wind farms damage health appear to have more to do with not wanting his golf course in Scotland to have a wind farm near it than any actual science.

So while President Trump might have a better level of education, he is still full of shit.

[Patridam]

Trump and Bush were/are both far better educated than the national average.

That's really not a valid response. Because when you look at Trump's public statements in regard to science, he does not do well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... c4169cfee5

Vaccinations and Autism - he claims there is still a link. That has been widely debunked as utter bollocks by several studies. The fact he is repeating this claim borders on criminal.

Climate Change - he says that man made climate change is a myth. Hundreds of U.S. researchers, including 30 Nobel laureates, have criticised him for this stance. And while I would not dare to suggest 30 Nobel laureates might have a better education than President Trump, I think that 30 Nobel laureates HAVE a better education than President Trump. Also nearly all actively publishing scientists in the field (according to peer reviewed studies) say that global warming in the past century is a consequence of human activity.

Wind Farms - his claims that wind farms damage health appear to have more to do with not wanting his golf course in Scotland to have a wind farm near it than any actual science.

So while President Trump might have a better level of education, he is still full of shit.

Even if you accept this argument, it doesn't change the assertion at all. Trump is educated, but still quote "denies science". Higher education will not do anything to stop presidents who "deny science".

[Diopolis]

Trump and Bush were/are both far better educated than the national average.

That's really not a valid response. Because when you look at Trump's public statements in regard to science, he does not do well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... c4169cfee5

Vaccinations and Autism - he claims there is still a link. That has been widely debunked as utter bollocks by several studies. The fact he is repeating this claim borders on criminal.

Climate Change - he says that man made climate change is a myth. Hundreds of U.S. researchers, including 30 Nobel laureates, have criticised him for this stance. And while I would not dare to suggest 30 Nobel laureates might have a better education than President Trump, I think that 30 Nobel laureates HAVE a better education than President Trump. Also nearly all actively publishing scientists in the field (according to peer reviewed studies) say that global warming in the past century is a consequence of human activity.

Wind Farms - his claims that wind farms damage health appear to have more to do with not wanting his golf course in Scotland to have a wind farm near it than any actual science.

So while President Trump might have a better level of education, he is still full of shit.

I chose those two presidents specifically to illustrate that being well educated doesn't stop you from being wrong. Actually, better educated people are if anything more likely to hold entertainingly wrong views about science than average.

[New haven america]

1. If you remove income tax, everything will be risen to compensate.
Why? Our government already has.
2. Because people are greedy and would rather keep their money, and in a society where that's a perfectly viable option (If one could actually survive for more than a few days off paper), no one's going to give their money away. Until we eliminate scarcity this will always be a problem.

1. Not if you reduce the amount of spending the government does, which is what I said. You lower the budget the government needs so it can sustain itself solely from a sales tax.
2. So your solution to people being greedy is to have the government forcefully take their wealth away under the threat of throwing them in a cage if they don't, as opposed to just making it less socially acceptable to be greedy? No one's tackled this point so far, and have instead diverted to the consequences of the government not taking peoples money as opposed to the fact that the government taking this money by force is fundamentally immoral. Extortion is wrong, and the governments ends do not justify the means of using it.

1. Then how would you propose we lower our spending?
2. Yes. There's no other way they're going to give up their wealth. If they had the option too, they'd just hoard as much as possible and say "Fuck you, I got mine" (Oh wait, a lot already do that, thanks Reaganomics and Bush tax cuts).

[Luziyca]

As someone who graduated from high school last June, it should be. And as someone living in a province where education budgets have been cut in the past few years so that Brad Wall can help his corporate buddies, I feel that everyone should have a right to a decent education.

That said, while you can guide a horse to water, you can't make it drink. But compared to what life was before compulsory education, I'd rather be educated than work long days in a mine shaft because I am not rich enough to go to school.

[Thermodolia]

It's all they've ever known, with the free market in charge of education they wouldn't need for the kids of farmers to have an education in anything but farming because the free market needs farmers.

Ok, yeah, but with public school why haven't they moved out of being farmers anyway? Since, you know, they're already getting education and all..

Many of them do when they go to college.