NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #3

Education For All
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Otnemem

Description: To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education

Votes For: 4,515
Votes Against: 1,081

Implemented: Wed Jan 8 2003


We recommend this Resolution be repealed on the grounds that we would like to propose a new resolution in its place.


Resolution Name: Education Act 2004
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Aligned Planets

Description: To give every child up to and including the age of 18 the right to a free education.


We feel it is time this legislation was updated.

I would suggest you read my Repeal Writing Guide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=365040) on how to write a more argumentative repeal in this case.

Just saying a repeal should occur so that a new proposal can be submitted is not enough to convince the NS UN to repeal a resolution.

Plus isn't education free through to the age of 18 already?

The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality, being aware of the objective fact that it is not government's place to provide or fund education for anyone--and especially not through coercive means--supports this attempt but will oppose whatever is brought up to replace it.

Why can't an amendment be proposed rather than a repeal?

I should think that everybody who is still in school no matter the age should have the right to a free education, those who wish to pay for one, may do so on their own accord.

In saying that, although I do not know the technical proceedure, I would agree with the resolution, I do think it is too brief and perhaps not as convincing as it needs to be, though.

You do realize that you could simply propose your resoloution. Granting free education to everyone up to and under the age of 18 in no way conflicts with granting free education to everyone under the age of 16, and that way you wouldn't have to argue against one proposal only to push through one almost identical to it.

I should think that everybody who is still in school no matter the age should have the right

Your first issue is in thinking that rights are an issue of "should". Rights can be neither given nor revoked--they are an inherent part of someone's existence, and their existence is not dependent upon institutional fiat. Every human individual on Earth, then, possesses the exact same set of rights--the only variable is the degree to which government allows the exercise of those rights. This is more than just semantics--it's the fundamental philosophical difference between an free republic and a collectivist despotism.

Given that, then, the question is "Is there such a thing as the right to a free education?"--and the objectively correct answer to that question is, of course, no. If such a right did exist, then it would imply an obligation on the part of someone else to PROVIDE such an education, which infringes upon his right to dispose of as he pleases with his person, time, and property. Since there can be no conflict between rights, the right to a free education does not exist.

Your first issue is in thinking that rights are an issue of "should". Rights can be neither given nor revoked--they are an inherent part of someone's existence, and their existence is not dependent upon institutional fiat. Every human individual on Earth, then, possesses the exact same set of rights--the only variable is the degree to which government allows the exercise of those rights. This is more than just semantics--it's the fundamental philosophical difference between an free republic and a collectivist despotism.

Given that, then, the question is "Is there such a thing as the right to a free education?"--and the objectively correct answer to that question is, of course, no. If such a right did exist, then it would imply an obligation on the part of someone else to PROVIDE such an education, which infringes upon his right to dispose of as he pleases with his person, time, and property. Since there can be no conflict between rights, the right to a free education does not exist.

You forget that while every human has basic rights, every human also has basic responcibilities. I would argue that education is a right, as much as every human as a right to life. The ability to 'dispose as you please with your person, time, and property', is not a right. While we have a right to freedom, we also have a duty to protect the right of others. If someone is starving, we have a duty to feed them. If someone is ignorant, we have a duty to educate them. Nothing comes free, and with our rights, we have responcibilites that cannot be ignored.

Oh ok - I won't bother repealing :-)

Thanks

When will you learn?! Education is not a right but a privilage! If it were to be treated as such again perhaps many would begin to appreciate it again. We puke upon this proposal! :headbang:

When will you learn?! Education is not a right but a privilage! If it were to be treated as such again perhaps many would begin to appreciate it again. We puke upon this proposal! :headbang:

If you take the time to BOTHER reading the posts directly before your own, you will realise that I am NOT going to repeal Resolution #3

Actually, I think (and please, correct me if I am wrong) that Winged Hussars is against free education. Or at least so I assume from his claim that it is a 'privilage', not a right, and from his apparent statement that if it was returned to the state of a 'privilage', people might appreciate it more.
In which case he probably agrees with a repeal of Resolution #3, but hardly for the reasons you had in mind when proposing it.

Winged Hussars - Thats exactly what this whole thing is about, yes, at the moment education is a privlidge, but that is the problem, it should be open to any one, any where, no matter religion, race, gender or other.

Just like the right to free speech. I know this is not the case but isn't that what these resolutions are meant to be for? Improving the quality of life. Making privlidges rights and so forth. If a government does not wish to comply then they may leave the UN.

I understand that free schooling for all may decrease the appreciation for education, but denying it, is a far greater injustice.

You forget that while every human has basic rights, every human also has basic responcibilities. I would argue that education is a right
Then you would be wrong, because it's not--nothing that is a right can impose any sort of positive obligation on others
The ability to 'dispose as you please with your person, time, and property', is not a right.
Yes, it does, because it does NOT impose any sort of positive obligation on others.
we have a duty to feed them.
Nope. Each individual exists for his own sake, and he has no inherent obligation to feed someone else, regardless of that person's need.
If someone is ignorant, we have a duty to educate them.
Nope. Each individual exists for his own sake, and he has no inherent obligation to educate someone else, regardless of that person's need.

I fully support this 'amendment'.