It's a necessity. To generalize who gets what education, and to standardize the way in which all people are educated; that is where things get tricky.
Anything "privileged" means that only a select or elite should be allowed in. Should we really be deciding who does and does not receive an education? Sure, knowledge is power... but only dependent on how someone uses that knowledge. Perhaps we should be focused less on what people are learning, and instead teach how to better use the knowledge they receive. But that would involve creative thinking on the parts of those already traditionally educated. And creativity is not taught. Only tools to express that creativity. Which again brings us to the decision of HOW to teach, and who should learn such things.
Topic: Education is a right or is more like a priveledge - page 3. (Read 2133 times)
Govt provided anything is not a right. Rights exist without a govt's involvement.
But if the govt provides an education, everyone should have equal access to it.
if you want a decent education you have to pay for it.But if the govt provides an education, everyone should have equal access to it.
you can adopt abrahamic bigot doctrine for free
education was free up until a couple years ago when the internet got cia'd and all the good shit got deleted
Govt provided anything is not a right. Rights exist without a govt's involvement.
But if the govt provides an education, everyone should have equal access to it.
a buddy of mine got his GI Bill for my military service and got his Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from the University of Colorado at Denver. he still haven't used his degree. While we debate education as either a right or privilege, we must not neglect the fact that people that have Bachelor's Degrees pushing brooms. What is the use of education past the high school level is the question that I ask. Why do you need a right to a Bachelor's Degree when you will be just as unemployed or underemployed in this economy as everyone else with a Bachelor's Degree? But if the govt provides an education, everyone should have equal access to it.
Govt provided anything is not a right. Rights exist without a govt's involvement.
But if the govt provides an education, everyone should have equal access to it.
But if the govt provides an education, everyone should have equal access to it.
education is a right because it benefits humanity the more you have it. less crime if you are more educated.
The both. It's a right to improve available capabilities and a privilege to develop new skills.
If you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn. 
Education is a right only if you or your family can provide it to yourself. So, going to school as a kid when your parents aren't either footing the bill (w/o charity or scholarship) nor paying enough taxes to cover your share is a privilege at the behest of the rest. Public Schools are day prison babysitting camps that teach basic level curriculum, compliance and socialization rather than independent, critical thinking.
So to recap,
"A Right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental Right and that is the right to life. All other rights are corollaries of the former."
"Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."
Ayn Rand
So to recap,
"A Right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental Right and that is the right to life. All other rights are corollaries of the former."
"Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."
Ayn Rand
Just wanna know any thoughts on this. I think is both at times, but depends on the factors of it
Jump to: