4 ms·

Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech,

Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your "right to X" someone is obligated to provide something to you, then you are back into the coercion game again.

kazinator 7y ago
Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention. (Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)
- gwright 7y ago
  Of course freedoms don't guarantee an outcome. That isn't what freedom is about. In your example it assumes some higher authority that intervenes to ensure that you get what is your right. What about the person you are replacing in that incoming class? For you to get the spot that you deserve someone else has to lose their spot (assuming there is a finite capacity). Wasn't their "right" just violated? As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"? That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce. Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.

kazinator 7y ago

Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention. (Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)

gwright 7y ago
Of course freedoms don't guarantee an outcome. That isn't what freedom is about. In your example it assumes some higher authority that intervenes to ensure that you get what is your right. What about the person you are replacing in that incoming class? For you to get the spot that you deserve someone else has to lose their spot (assuming there is a finite capacity). Wasn't their "right" just violated? As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"? That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce. Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.