> And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important? I suppose YOU know wha

> And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important? I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails. Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government. Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?