What do people have a right to.

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
How can we push forward if we allow the same old issues wealthy politicians, that are only primarily concerned with maintaining their own wealth and power, and the wealth and power of the people that contribute large amounts of money to their campaigns, to divide us.

Here are some radical ideas, and I know I'm going to take heat from all sides for them, but if they didn't piss people off, and take them outside their comfort zones( safe space ), I wouldn't be thinking outside the box, and my ideas wouldn't be radical enough to jar the kind of thought that maybe able to break us out of the false ideals we allow politicians to cast upon us, when we do not think for ourselves.

1. People have a right to "private property", everyone, as a course of being born human, and on this Earth has an inherent right to own some small piece of it, that they can call home.

2. Children( people ) have a right to be paid for the "work" they perform.

Public education is a right, however when we use the power of the state to force people to be somewhere they may not want to be, and do "work", yet they do not get paid when they produce good work, we are engaging in a form of slavery. What's worse is, we are reinforcing the idea that good work should not equal some sort of immediate monetary reward.

3. People have a right to issue their own promise to pay, and the primary reason government exists is to securitize this promise to pay, so called credit, and money( proof of debt ).

No nation can claim to be "free" or sovereign, that does not extend to all it's people credit, free of interest( the interest of the State is the interest of it's people's economic wellbeing ). This credit has two forms, debt, and proof of that debt( money ). It is the expansion of the money supply, through the practice of responsible lending and borrowing, that leads to economic progress for all.

4. People have a right to adequate food, shelter they own on their own property, clean drinking water, and clean air and soil.

5. People have a right to to medical care, tho sometimes that care can only ease suffering. We are all going to die, it is inescapable fact, the government could spend every dime of everyone's money on "Healthcare", and everyone would still die. Things have to be reasoned and measured, you could spend a million dollars giving an 80 year old a new heart, or spend it on prenatal care.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
People are allowed a nice warm glass of shut the hell up.

Sorry, I watched Happy Gilmore recently.
Ever seen the movie "Idiocracy":D
[doublepost=1499777704][/doublepost]
I think this about covers it: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Note the US voted for this declaration.
Thanks, I read it before, doesn't go far enough. People are displaced all the time, and taken advantage of by people that can borrow virtually unlimited amounts of our nations money, from the private baking system.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,793
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
1. People have a right to "private property", everyone, as a course of being born human, and on this Earth has an inherent right to own some small piece of it, that they can call home.
Change this to "people have the right to acquire private property" and I'm all on board.

2. Children( people ) have a right to be paid for the "work" they perform.

Public education is a right, however when we use the power of the state to force people to be somewhere they may not want to be, and do "work", yet they do not get paid when they produce good work, we are engaging in a form of slavery. What's worse is, we are reinforcing the idea that good work should not equal some sort of immediate monetary reward.
I disagree here. I don't believe that people should be paid for work. I believe people should be paid for the value they create, by the beneficiaries of said value.

If I'm a high school student and I write an essay and get an A, I've done great work. But for whom? My perfect essay provides no value to my teachers, to the school, to anyone...except me. I am the beneficiary of the education and skills I am receiving, not the school. Not my parents. Just me.

If you're worried about forcing kids to do things they don't want to do, then simply stop forcing kids to go. Get rid of compulsory education all together. But paying students to learn makes no sense to me.

3. People have a right to issue their own promise to pay, and the primary reason government exists is to securitize this promise to pay, so called credit, and money( proof of debt ).

No nation can claim to be "free" or sovereign, that does not extend to all it's people credit, free of interest( the interest of the State is the interest of it's people's economic wellbeing ). This credit has two forms, debt, and proof of that debt( money ). It is the expansion of the money supply, through the practice of responsible lending and borrowing, that leads to economic progress for all.
I'm not following you here. Are you saying we need to print more money so people can have more of it?

4. People have a right to adequate food, shelter they own on their own property, clean drinking water, and clean air and soil.
I wouldn't say people should have a "right" to food and shelter. It should definitely be available to those in need, and for the most part, it is.

I believe environmental protections should absolutely be a right.

5. People have a right to to medical care, tho sometimes that care can only ease suffering. We are all going to die, it is inescapable fact, the government could spend every dime of everyone's money on "Healthcare", and everyone would still die. Things have to be reasoned and measured, you could spend a million dollars giving an 80 year old a new heart, or spend it on prenatal care.
As Han Solo would say, "Well that's the real trick isn't it? And it's going to cost ya";)

I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC (anymore). But those are the two questions. How much care, and how much are we as a nation willing to spend on it.
 

Populism

macrumors regular
Jun 11, 2014
185
2,970
Great thread. This is a question I often ponder. Because, in a sense, all political and social issues begin with the question you ask - what do people have a right to.

Tied up with work but hope to contribute later.

Just a couple of thoughts/questions:

Do people have a right to food and water? Do people have a right to organic food? Do people have a right to shelter? Do people have a right to a smart phone? To internet? To a job?

Interesting stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeeGood

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,115
1,246
Always a day away
If I'm a high school student and I write an essay and get an A, I've done great work. But for whom? My perfect essay provides no value to my teachers, to the school, to anyone...except me. I am the beneficiary of the education and skills I am receiving, not the school. Not my parents. Just me.
Very well-said, you took the words right out of my mouth. You get an A. :D

- - - - -

We have the right to own or otherwise possess many things. We do not necessarily have the right to have them given to us for free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfgrad93

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,434
10,333
If I'm a high school student and I write an essay and get an A, I've done great work. But for whom? My perfect essay provides no value to my teachers, to the school, to anyone...except me. I am the beneficiary of the education and skills I am receiving, not the school. Not my parents. Just me.
I'd like to take issue with this.

There's a net benefit to society for you doing well in school (assuming a good education system that teaches properly).

by doing well in school, you learn, and gain skills. When you go on from school, those skills, education, the things that make you, you, help define who you become when you enter the post-education world. That knowledge goes on to help elecate society by providing goods, services or other offerings to the rest of society, that in the end, net benefits. You are a productive member of society.

one of the biggest mistakes people have about education is that they expect it to be purely about teaching you how to do a job. The reality is, Education is more about learning how to learn and use your brain, so that you can apply that thinking powers to the benefit of society.

if we just decided to eliminate good education, and train people exclusively on their professions they'll do when they leave work, they become essentially automatons. That really doesn't benefit society.

a good and well funded public education system might seem like a net negative in regards to money expenditures now, But the long term gains of an educated population have been measured time and time again as being a net positive for future generations
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
Change this to "people have the right to acquire private property" and I'm all on board.
So you only have a right to some small piece of this earth we all share, if you can afford to buy it, at the price set by the person selling it, because they were here before you, and they have a "right" to the land that their ancestors stole from native people's?

I disagree here. I don't believe that people should be paid for work. I believe people should be paid for the value they create, by the beneficiaries of said value.

If I'm a high school student and I write an essay and get an A, I've done great work. But for whom? My perfect essay provides no value to my teachers, to the school, to anyone...except me. I am the beneficiary of the education and skills I am receiving, not the school. Not my parents. Just me.

If you're worried about forcing kids to do things they don't want to do, then simply stop forcing kids to go. Get rid of compulsory education all together. But paying students to learn makes no sense to me.
Penny wise and pound foolish, in the US we spend more money on "Education" than any other country, yet no one, other than me, seems to think some of that money should go to the people that are forced to be there. The reason we have a public education system is because it benefits all of us when people are more educated.

Each high school drop out, costs the tax payer, on average, over $200,000, and I surmise that the root cause of this is people not having the proper motivation. Their parents are unable to motivate them, they haven't the means, or the wherewithal. It's much we can do about the wherewithal, some people are just not that good a parenting, or they are uneducated themselves. There is, however, something we can do about the means, and the economic benefit to all of us, to better educated, more motivated young people should be well understood by everyone.

I'm not following you here. Are you saying we need to print more money so people can have more of it?
A fundamental misunderstanding of our monetary system. You likely think that our "money" comes from "Government Printing", and that maybe were "Cash" comes from, the US Mint, but that's not were the vast majority of money comes from. Also, you likely think that when a bank loans money, that it is only loaning money people have on deposit at the bank, for the purposes of lending out for profit.

That's not the way things work at all, the money supply expands, every time a bank makes a loan. They are creating "new" money, our nations money, and lending it out, at interest( for profit ). When the loan is repaid, the money that is created ceases to exist. It came from nothing, it must return to nothing, otherwise, it is inflationary. The interest the banks get to keep as profit and to cover operating costs, but it cost them nothing to create the money they are making a profit from.

I know, it's so mind numbingly simple, that the mind is repelled, it seems that some there must be some deeper mystery to the way 97% of our "money" is created. It's nothing more than bank credit, one's and zeros in a computer, or a debt on a ledger book.

I wouldn't say people should have a "right" to food and shelter. It should definitely be available to those in need, and for the most part, it is.
Not sure about the "most part", the most part of the US, or the most part of the world?

As Han Solo would say, "Well that's the real trick isn't it? And it's going to cost ya";)

I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC (anymore). But those are the two questions. How much care, and how much are we as a nation willing to spend on it.
I think we are on the same page here.

Do people have a right to food and water? Do people have a right to organic food? Do people have a right to shelter? Do people have a right to a smart phone? To internet? To a job?
I don't need a smart phone or the internet to live, tho they do make my life a lot easier, I do need food and clean water, and a place to be that no one can force me off of, legally speaking, that provides enough shelter to keep me from freezing to death, or dying of heatstroke, and I can maintain some sort of sanitary living condition.

One day, may people decide that smartphones, and the internet are so useful, and provide so much advantage, that no one can be denied there use, or prohibited from owning one, regardless of economic circumstance?

That day may well come, but I don't think it here yet. We've got a long way to go in providing the things I listed, to all of mankind, before we delve into "First World Problems".
 
Last edited:

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,434
10,333
One day, may people decide that smartphones, and the internet are so useful, and provide so much advantage, that no one can be denied there use, or prohibited from owning one, regardless of economic circumstance?
some more progressive countries have already deemed it.

Canada has deemed internet to be basically an essential service. Now they're not giving it away for free, But they're forcing the telecom's to provide an affordable and cheap basic service, to all inhabited parts of the country, so that TelCo's cannot use the excuse "it's not profitable enough" to deny coverage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring

Populism

macrumors regular
Jun 11, 2014
185
2,970
I don't need a smart phone or the internet to live, tho they do make my life a lot easier, I do need food and clean water, and a place to be that no one can force me off of, legally speaking, that provides enough shelter to keep me from freezing to death, or dying of heatstroke, and I can maintain some sort of sanitary living condition.

One day, may people decide that smartphones, and the internet are so useful, and provide so much advantage, that no one can be denied there use, or prohibited from owning one, regardless of economic circumstance?

That day may well come, but I don't think it here yet. We've got a long way to go in providing the things I listed, to all of mankind, before we delve into "First World Problems".
I agree. But I mentioned those because I believe they are part of a new dividing line.

Here are the ones that come to mind that I personally believe are not rights, but I believe that there's a very substantial population who will say (perhaps quietly and indirectly) they believe these things should be rights:

transportation
internet access
college
"living wage" income, whether working or not
vacation from work
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
some more progressive countries have already deemed it.

Canada has deemed internet to be basically an essential service. Now they're not giving it away for free, But they're forcing the telecom's to provide an affordable and cheap basic service, to all inhabited parts of the country, so that TelCo's cannot use the excuse "it's not profitable enough" to deny coverage.
I'm certainly not against it, anything that expands our rights and promotes a happier, more productive society is serving my Lord and Savor, but it's a matter of priorities.

Until everyone has the rights I've outlined, I just don't see a lot of point in beating that drum, while people go unfed, without clean air, soil, and water, or without a home.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,793
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
I'd like to take issue with this.

There's a net benefit to society for you doing well in school (assuming a good education system that teaches properly).

by doing well in school, you learn, and gain skills. When you go on from school, those skills, education, the things that make you, you, help define who you become when you enter the post-education world. That knowledge goes on to help elecate society by providing goods, services or other offerings to the rest of society, that in the end, net benefits. You are a productive member of society.

one of the biggest mistakes people have about education is that they expect it to be purely about teaching you how to do a job. The reality is, Education is more about learning how to learn and use your brain, so that you can apply that thinking powers to the benefit of society.

if we just decided to eliminate good education, and train people exclusively on their professions they'll do when they leave work, they become essentially automatons. That really doesn't benefit society.

a good and well funded public education system might seem like a net negative in regards to money expenditures now, But the long term gains of an educated population have been measured time and time again as being a net positive for future generations
I agree that there is a benifit that accrues to society in general when an individual is educated, which is why K-12 education is government funded. But the largest part of the benefit accrues to the individual. We shouldn't be paying people to take a free benefit.

Also note, I'm not saying we should eliminate education. I'm saying it shouldn't be compulsory. Educate the kids who want to be there or who's parents are engaged.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
I agree that there is a benifit that accrues to society in general when an individual is educated, which is why K-12 education is government funded. But the largest part of the benefit accrues to the individual. We shouldn't be paying people to take a free benefit.

Also note, I'm not saying we should eliminate education. I'm saying it shouldn't be compulsory. Educate the kids who want to be there or who's parents are engaged.
Ok, but you spend your money to feed, cloth, shelter, and provide healthcare or imprisonment to all the unmotivated kids with parents that don't give a damn about them. Because we are $20 trillion in the RED, and the way things are going, the way you want things done, only leads to more debt.

You may not think it's possible, but at some point governments are no longer going to be able to borrow money, at any sort of reasonable interest rates. They will no longer be able to provide for the people that can't, or won't provide for themselves.

When that day comes, and it will if we keep covering the same ground by doing the things that put us in this debt, it's going to be bad for everyone.
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,434
10,333
I agree that there is a benifit that accrues to society in general when an individual is educated, which is why K-12 education is government funded. But the largest part of the benefit accrues to the individual. We shouldn't be paying people to take a free benefit.

Also note, I'm not saying we should eliminate education. I'm saying it shouldn't be compulsory. Educate the kids who want to be there or who's parents are engaged.
problem is, if you decide that, than you create a class of citizen that is uneducated on purpose, which immediatelyu removes their ability to "work hard to get ahead"

as mentioned before, when those who have the power/money instill barriers to make it more difficult, the very notion of "work hard and you get your reward" dissapears. Because working hard no longer guarantees success.

you cannot withold or deny the means to get ahead, while bitching that they don't work hard to get ahead.

Education up to 18 should be mandatory. once they're an adult, then they can choose to further educate themselves or not. ONce they're adult and hopefully able to make that decision themselves (by using their education they've already received)

How unfair would it be to a genious little 10 year old, whose parents don't believe in the "system" and purposely with holds education for some perceived reason. I know the debate comes in that it's a parents right to do so, but sometimes the parents right to chose isn't in the benefit of society.

Just think that same child, now without proper education, gets stuck at minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives because they now don't have the needed skillset to try and get ahead. They may literally know no better, because their parents chose for them a really bad choice not to get them educated. Now in the future, that kid, who could have been the next einstein, lives life on foodstamps working at walmart.

this is why < 18 education tends to be mandatory in "advanced" society. it's absolutely proven to be a net benefit to society. A well educated populace can support themselves far far greater than an uneducated one.
[doublepost=1499786135][/doublepost]
I'm certainly not against it, anything that expands our rights and promotes a happier, more productive society is serving my Lord and Savor, but it's a matter of priorities.

Until everyone has the rights I've outlined, I just don't see a lot of point in beating that drum, while people go unfed, without clean air, soil, and water, or without a home.
I don't disagree. The Governments job is supposed to be prioritizing and looking out for all citizens well being. if you've got rampant racism, people starving, lack of housing and proper paying jobs, making sure 100% internet coverage is available is probably not quite the highest priority.

But see, and I don't want to sound high and mighty, But I KNOW it does, Many of the other western nation worlds have already put in place the methods to deal with those. Not necessarily perfectly, But when you compare the countries that regularly fall on the "top places to live" by almost any metric, they tend to be left leaning, Liberal policy, countries with strong social programs, and a competitive (at least locally, if not internationally) free market system. And one of the ways we achieve all this is by having a highly educated population (mandatory education < 18, and easier access to post secondary education for those who wish, with many different streams of education for different types of workforce)

Look at your neighbours to the north. We have pretty much the exact same "freedoms" as the US. we don't pay exceedingly more in taxation. We have a rich and robust free market. But we also provide Nationalized health services, Effective social programs for those who need and fall on hard times, with the expectations that those who can, will work.

I think the problem, and I've probably mentioned this before, is that, while I don't think you argue with the merits of these programs, you have no faith left in the US government to be able to effectively manage and maintain such programs.
 
Last edited:

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,793
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
So you only have a right to some small piece of this earth we all share, if you can afford to buy it, at the price set by the person selling it, because they were here before you, and they have a "right" to the land that their ancestors stole from native people's?
I can't change what happened in the past. If I could, I would. But if past wrongs could be used to de-legitimize legal ownership of things in the way you seem to be implying, we wouldn't be able to have enforceable property rights at all.

Penny wise and pound foolish, in the US we spend more money on "Education" than any other country, yet no one, other than me, seems to think some of that money should go to the people that are forced to be there. The reason we have a public education system is because it benefits all of us when people are more educated.

Each high school drop out, costs the tax payer, on average, over $200,000, and I surmise that the root cause of this is people not having the proper motivation. Their parents are unable to motivate them, they haven't the means, or the wherewithal. It's much we can do about the wherewithal, some people are just not that good a parenting, or they are uneducated themselves. There is, however, something we can do about the means, and the economic benefit to all of us, to better educated, more motivated young people should be well understood by everyone.
Where are you getting that a high school drop out costs tax payers $200K Do you have a source for this?

A fundamental misunderstanding of our monetary system. You likely think that our "money" comes from "Government Printing", and that maybe were "Cash" comes from, the US Mint, but that's not were the vast majority of money comes from. Also, you likely think that when a bank loans money, that it is only loaning money people have on deposit at the bank, for the purposes of lending out for profit.

That's not the way things work at all, the money supply expands, every time a bank makes a loan. They are creating "new" money, our nations money, and lending it out, at interest( for profit ). When the loan is repaid, the money that is created ceases to exist. It came from nothing, it must return to nothing, otherwise, it is inflationary. The interest the banks get to keep as profit and to cover operating costs, but it cost them nothing to create the money they are making a profit from.

I know, it's so mind numbingly simple, that the mind is repelled, it seems that some there must be some deeper mystery to the way 97% of our "money" is created. It's nothing more than bank credit, one's and zeros in a computer, or a debt on a ledger book.
Well that's an...interesting take on the monetary system.

If banks are creating money, why don't they just start underwriting zillion dollar loans to each other and earn themselves trillions of dollars in interest out of thin air?


Not sure about the "most part", the most part of the US, or the most part of the world?
The US. My only experience with the welfare state is here.
[doublepost=1499787391][/doublepost]
Ok, but you spend your money to feed, cloth, shelter, and provide healthcare or imprisonment to all the unmotivated kids with parents that don't give a damn about them. Because we are $20 trillion in the RED, and the way things are going, the way you want things done, only leads to more debt.

You may not think it's possible, but at some point governments are no longer going to be able to borrow money, at any sort of reasonable interest rates. They will no longer be able to provide for the people that can't, or won't provide for themselves.

When that day comes, and it will if we keep covering the same ground by doing the things that put us in this debt, it's going to be bad for everyone.
Or, once they've realized that not having a diploma limits them to a crappy life, we can help them get a GED. That's a lot cheaper than propping up uneducated people for the rest of their lives.
 

Mousse

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2008
2,047
2,676
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
2. Children( people ) have a right to be paid for the "work" they perform.

Public education is a right, however when we use the power of the state to force people to be somewhere they may not want to be, and do "work", yet they do not get paid when they produce good work, we are engaging in a form of slavery.
The old folks refuse to tell kids the truth about school. Unlike what they want kids to believe, education is secondary. It's primary purpose is to keep kids from disrupting the functioning of society at large. Summer vacation is a high stress time for working parents with school age kids.

3. People have a right to issue their own promise to pay, and the primary reason government exists is to securitize this promise to pay, so called credit, and money( proof of debt ).
Not such a good idea, IMO. The mafias and drug dealers let people issue their own promise to pay. Since the Government will not enforce that promise to pay between drug dealers and drug lords, the drug lords have to enforce that promise to pay themselves. Usually in the form of violence.

4. People have a right to adequate food, shelter they own on their own property, clean drinking water, and clean air and soil.

5. People have a right to to medical care, tho sometimes that care can only ease suffering.
Shoulda left the natives in charge.;)
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,793
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
problem is, if you decide that, than you create a class of citizen that is uneducated on purpose, which immediatelyu removes their ability to "work hard to get ahead"

as mentioned before, when those who have the power/money instill barriers to make it more difficult, the very notion of "work hard and you get your reward" dissapears. Because working hard no longer guarantees success.

you cannot withold or deny the means to get ahead, while bitching that they don't work hard to get ahead.

Education up to 18 should be mandatory. once they're an adult, then they can choose to further educate themselves or not. ONce they're adult and hopefully able to make that decision themselves (by using their education they've already received)

How unfair would it be to a genious little 10 year old, whose parents don't believe in the "system" and purposely with holds education for some perceived reason. I know the debate comes in that it's a parents right to do so, but sometimes the parents right to chose isn't in the benefit of society.

Just think that same child, now without proper education, gets stuck at minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives because they now don't have the needed skillset to try and get ahead. They may literally know no better, because their parents chose for them a really bad choice not to get them educated. Now in the future, that kid, who could have been the next einstein, lives life on foodstamps working at walmart.

this is why < 18 education tends to be mandatory in "advanced" society. it's absolutely proven to be a net benefit to society. A well educated populace can support themselves far far greater than an uneducated one.
Ive never suggested that we instill any barriers or deprive anyone of an education. I'm saying there is no need to force kids to sit in a classroom. There is a difference. If you tell the kids who absolutely don't want to be there that they don't have to be, you're actually creating a better and more accessible educational environment for the kids that want to be there.

You seem to believe that simply sitting in a classroom is the same as receiving an education. It's really not. My wife used to teach at a HS in an upper middle class area. Even there, every year she had 14 and 15 yo's who where literally running out the clock. They were waiting for their 16th bday so they could legally drop out. They'd show up with no paper, nothing to write with, and zero motivation. I don't care how great a teacher you are, those kids aren't learning anything. Forcing them to be there is a waste.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,802
People shouldn’t have the right to pump out as many kids as their body can physically handle. I’m for mandatory sterilization for all at birth which can be undone once the individual proves that they can take care of themselves with enough to spare for a kid and each subsequent kid. Don’t tell me that’s unfair to the poor. Less people means less poor and more opportunity.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Ive never suggested that we instill any barriers or deprive anyone of an education. I'm saying there is no need to force kids to sit in a classroom. There is a difference. If you tell the kids who absolutely don't want to be there that they don't have to be, you're actually creating a better and more accessible educational environment for the kids that want to be there.
Well you would have empty classrooms if you let children decide if they want education.
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,434
10,333
You seem to believe that simply sitting in a classroom is the same as receiving an education
this is a different matter. I'm sorry if that's what you were saying. The wording implied that you believe that young kids shouldn't be forced to have education if they don't want, that they can just be kept home until they work

I'm not apposed to alternative education methods such as homeschool as long as there's a certain minimum curriculum met.

Not all kids learn the same. So adjusting for those differences, if meaning they don't sit in a classroom with 40 other kids all day, is not a bad thing, as long as they receive the same standard of learning
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
Where are you getting that a high school drop out costs tax payers $200K Do you have a source for this?
$292,000
The same study (PDF) found that as a result — when compared to the typical high school graduate — a dropout will end up costing taxpayers an average of $292,000 over a lifetime due to the price tag associated with incarceration and other factors such as how much less they pay in taxes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/by-the-numbers-dropping-out-of-high-school/