Is education a right?

[Murphy101]

Faith-

 

The inherent problem of saying rights derive from government is that it leaves rights being defined by the govt. It's a vicious cycle.

[FaithManor]

Faith-

 

The inherent problem of saying rights derive from government is that it leaves rights being defined by the govt. It's a vicious cycle.

I agree Martha. It's a conundrum for darn certain. I don't know how to avoid the cycle. I just know what we've got going now isn't working at preserving the republic and frankly, the fact that it isn't working is one reason a lot of us are on this board homeschooling or after schooling our kids, trying to teach them some real history, literacy, and logical thinking skills.

 

I don't know that there is a good answer to the problem.

 

Faith

[Heidi]

The difference between inalienable rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights, and those #2 rights such as education, food, and healthcare, is that inalienable rights do not require the the time, talents, or money of another human being.

If government declares #2 as rights, then I am forced by law to give my time, talents, and money to provide those rights to others, and vice versa. The key word here is "forced." Just as it would be immoral of me to steal my neighbor's car who had two, and gave it to my other neighbor who had none, it is also immoral to for the law to do the same. Nor can that be considered charity because it is forced. The law should be for the protection if inalienable rights and for the general welfare of the country (roads, police, military, ect.), not as a force to take property (money) from some and give to others because they deserve it. Those moral obligations to care for the poor and needy should be left to the fee will and charity of citizens. Some argue that people wouldn't step up to the challenge and that the need is too great. I say BS. I think that we would become a more caring, happy, and fulfilled society if we were free to keep our money that is taken by taxes and choose to serve our neighbors by fulfilling our moral obligations.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Wouldn't it be amazing if the free will and charity of others actually did provide those things?

 

 

A girl can dream.

 

Until then education, among other things, needs to be legislated as a right.

[Murphy101]

Wouldn't it be amazing if the free will and charity of others actually did provide those things?

A girl can dream.

Until then education, among other things, needs to be legislated as a right.

But you cannot legislate morality.

 

Is it morally right to feed and educate others, regardless of age?

 

Absolutely.

 

Can you legislate it?

 

No, you can't.

 

You can legislate that multimillion dollar industries and government subsidiaries get money taken from citizens for that purpose on the promise, often empty, that they will hire people to do what citizens do not charitably do, but you cannot legislate that people do it.

 

Unless of course you believe legislation should be passed mandating that unless I teach children who otherwise would not be taught I will face punitive government sanction punishment?

 

This is a problem right now in many crime ridden urban schools. No amount of money will keep teachers in these schools. But yet the children supposedly have been legislated a right to an education. And how then is that going to happen when teachers refuse to teach there?

 

It's extremely costly to pay people to temporarily do what people in the community used to do out of the kindness, or not so kind, hearts.

[La Texican]

Apparantly they have not been legislated a right to an education. They legislated a obligation to the State and the parents to get the kids educated, but if they called it a right they'd open themselves up to discrimination lawsuits, as far as the internet tells me. Anyway, not educating them because it's too hard is definately not going to help reduce their crimes.

[La Texican]

I was talking to my grandmother and she told me there's a difference between a law and a right.

[Crimson Wife]

I believe that the child has a right to an education but that parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their minor children. The government can step in when there is educational neglect, but in the absence of true neglect, the parents get to make the call as to the type of schooling the children receive. So the child has no right to attend a government-run school over parental objections in the absence of actual educational neglect.

[Crimson Wife]

I can get on board with that.  Here in NY it is basically written into the constitution.  But there is the allowance for a parent to provide the education (or choose alternatives to public school).

The reason I bring it up is because there was somebody famous (Robert Reich perhaps?) who wrote an article a few years ago for a legal publication asserting that children should have the right to attend government-run schools over parental objections if the child and parent disagreed about homeschooling.

[Mergath]

The difference between inalienable rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights, and those #2 rights such as education, food, and healthcare, is that inalienable rights do not require the the time, talents, or money of another human being.

If government declares #2 as rights, then I am forced by law to give my time, talents, and money to provide those rights to others, and vice versa. The key word here is "forced." Just as it would be immoral of me to steal my neighbor's car who had two, and gave it to my other neighbor who had none, it is also immoral to for the law to do the same. Nor can that be considered charity because it is forced. The law should be for the protection if inalienable rights and for the general welfare of the country (roads, police, military, ect.), not as a force to take property (money) from some and give to others because they deserve it. Those moral obligations to care for the poor and needy should be left to the fee will and charity of citizens. Some argue that people wouldn't step up to the challenge and that the need is too great. I say BS. I think that we would become a more caring, happy, and fulfilled society if we were free to keep our money that is taken by taxes and choose to serve our neighbors by fulfilling our moral obligations.

 

History has shown on many occasions that this simply isn't true, and most of what I hear people say on this forum reinforces that.  People won't magically step up and take care of their neighbors in need in the absence of government.  They'll watch them starve, then go online and criticize them after the fact as being lazy and worthless.

 

The government has no choice but to "immorally" collect taxes and use them for the welfare of the country as a whole, because from what I see here, the extent of most people's "morals" is that if you lay a hand on their money, they'll shoot you.

 

If you can't tell, I get sick of the hypocrisy.  We both know that the people who refer to taxes as stealing are not going to voluntarily give anything to the poor.

[MomatHWTK]

If I am not mistaken, our current Justice Department in an amicus brief stated that government has an interest in compelling government run education because of the need to indoctrinate all children in the same manner.  (Indoctrinate being my word.)  This was in relation to the German homeschoolers seeking asylum (I think) case.   

 

Here's the 6th Circuit's holding:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2399552186811856813&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[Murphy101]

History has shown on many occasions that this simply isn't true, and most of what I hear people say on this forum reinforces that. People won't magically step up and take care of their neighbors in need in the absence of government. They'll watch them starve, then go online and criticize them after the fact as being lazy and worthless.

 

The government has no choice but to "immorally" collect taxes and use them for the welfare of the country as a whole, because from what I see here, the extent of most people's "morals" is that if you lay a hand on their money, they'll shoot you.

 

If you can't tell, I get sick of the hypocrisy. We both know that the people who refer to taxes as stealing are not going to voluntarily give anything to the poor.

I don't think taxes justly and properly and equitably accrued are stealing.

 

I do think that many people unduly burden the govt bc the govt actively encourages their dependence.

 

The more dependent people are on government, the less their neighbor feels compelled to help out. I find that sad and more.

 

Because I completely agree with you that if I think my neighbor doesn't have enough food for their kids, it is not my moral obligation to call CPS. It is my moral obligation to feed them. To literally walk over with a basket and give those kids food if I can spare it. Far far far too many people are washing their hands of dealing with unpleasant reality of their fellow man by thinking a call to a govt number is all they need to do.

[Heidi]

History has shown on many occasions that this simply isn't true, and most of what I hear people say on this forum reinforces that. People won't magically step up and take care of their neighbors in need in the absence of government. They'll watch them starve, then go online and criticize them after the fact as being lazy and worthless.

 

The government has no choice but to "immorally" collect taxes and use them for the welfare of the country as a whole, because from what I see here, the extent of most people's "morals" is that if you lay a hand on their money, they'll shoot you.

 

If you can't tell, I get sick of the hypocrisy. We both know that the people who refer to taxes as stealing are not going to voluntarily give anything to the poor.

My family gives 14% our our income before taxes to feed the poor, among other things.. We gave a weeks worth of food and toiletries to a local family last month and participate regularly in local humanitarian aide projects. We have 2+ years of food storage in our home to feed the hungry if something terrible were to happen locally. We voluntarily give of our time, talents, and money to help our community. We feel that because we have been so blessed financially, that it is our moral obligation to help others. I know plenty of people who think and do as we do.

We own guns and ammo to protect ourselves and others who seek to harm or steal.

**I** refer to taxes that support welfare programs as stealing. I believe in the goodness of people. I'm not a hypocrite :)

And I don't know much about history, but I know enough to tell you don't either.

[Mergath]

My family gives 14% our our income before taxes to feed the poor, among other things.. We gave a weeks worth of food and toiletries to a local family last month and participate regularly in local humanitarian aide projects. We have 2+ years of food storage in our home to feed the hungry if something terrible were to happen locally. We voluntarily give of our time, talents, and money to help our community. We feel that because we have been so blessed financially, that it is our moral obligation to help others. I know plenty of people who think and do as we do.

We own guns and ammo to protect ourselves and others who seek to harm or steal.

**I** refer to taxes that support welfare programs as stealing. I believe in the goodness of people. I'm not a hypocrite :)

And I don't know much about history, but I know enough to tell you don't either.

 

Giving a tithe to your church because the bible tells you to is not the same thing as voluntarily giving to the poor, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  There are a lot of hungry people in the world that aren't Christians, and far too many churches not willing to help them unless they start praying to the "correct" god.  There was a story in the news about this the other day, a soup kitchen who flipped their sh*t because some atheists tried to volunteer.  I can't imagine what they'd do if an atheist actually wanted some food.  And somehow, I doubt your food storage is for anyone but your family.  Sorry.  I mean, you plan to share this food with the needy, but you have guns to keep people from stealing it?  And we also give generously, but I don't wave it around like a pass to sit around bitching about my precious dollars going to food stamps.

 

If you think human history isn't full of instances of people starving to death while those with far more simply sat and watched, you might want to read through a decent history book.  In times of difficulty, the people with plenty who don't want to share simply dehumanize those with nothing.  It happens all the time.  It happens today in this very country, when people sneer about welfare queens and people committing fraud to buy lobster or whatever.  People lump them into a category and look at them as things because it's easier to whine about taxes and feel better about looking away. 

[Murphy101]

Oh dang mergath.

 

I'm all for ignoring AbigailAdams there because I think this was a nice interesting discussion until that point.

 

I donate to Catholic charities exclusively. Because I share their beliefs about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and so forth. I know for a fact that catholic charities give to anyone and everyone who shows up! regardless if their religious beliefs or lack of them.

 

Now if we wanted to get political... I could go there....

 

But I don't think tithing necessarily means only people in that church receive from the tithe. In Roman Catholic terms, your tithe is your charitable contribution within the church as a whole. Not just what is passed in the basket. And even what goes in the basket is not always just for church needs. Many times it is not.

[T'smom]

Giving a tithe to your church because the bible tells you to is not the same thing as voluntarily giving to the poor, the disabled, the elderly, etc. There are a lot of hungry people in the world that aren't Christians, and far too many churches not willing to help them unless they start praying to the "correct" god. There was a story in the news about this the other day, a soup kitchen who flipped their sh*t because some atheists tried to volunteer. I can't imagine what they'd do if an atheist actually wanted some food. And somehow, I doubt your food storage is for anyone but your family. Sorry. I mean, you plan to share this food with the needy, but you have guns to keep people from stealing it? And we also give generously, but I don't wave it around like a pass to sit around bitching about my precious dollars going to food stamps.

 

If you think human history isn't full of instances of people starving to death while those with far more simply sat and watched, you might want to read through a decent history book. In times of difficulty, the people with plenty who don't want to share simply dehumanize those with nothing. It happens all the time. It happens today in this very country, when people sneer about welfare queens and people committing fraud to buy lobster or whatever. People lump them into a category and look at them as things because it's easier to whine about taxes and feel better about looking away.

I totally and completely agree with you but I want you to know that there ARE churches/Christian organizations that help anyone who needs it, regardless of their beliefs. I know there are those that don't and those are the ones that get the press.

[Laura Corin]

It's extremely costly to pay people to temporarily do what people in the community used to do out of the kindness, or not so kind, hearts.

 

Part of the problem is that as countries develop, the expectations increase.  That's not a bad thing in my book, but it does make the charity option increasingly unaffordable.  In the 19th century, tending to another person's illness might mean - as in Jane Austen - getting the eldest daughter of a poor family to come up to the big house for some soup for the ailing mother.  Now it might mean a million dollars worth of surgery and recovery for that mother's heart defect.  I think that most of us could still manage the soup, but how many could pay for the heart surgery?

 

And getting back to education: I could charitably teach the local children to read at weekends, but I don't have the time to get them to the level of education that would allow them to function in this society.  For that matter, even in the 19th century in Britain, if you wanted to learn a trade you were either born into it or you paid a large sum to a skilled worker for your child to apprentice. And as for charity schools: the school I went to was founded in a merchant's will in 1634 for the education of poor children.  But it only had a handful of pupils in what was even then a bustling city.  How far did the charity reach?

 

L

[bolt.]

I think passing gov't laws and creating govt programs to help the poor is both charitable and efficient. If a minority of people think they could be more charitable and/or more efficient on their own -- I'm kinda glad that the majority prefers a nation-wide collective strategy (with standards, oversight, a sense of fairness, and low shame factor) strongly enough to vote for reps who enact one. A very few strongly charitable people are not the substance of a national strategy.

 

We have in our Church a married couple of blind people. There are 5 or 6 families reasonably local to them that help out: drive errands, sort cupboards, fix computers, meal-plan and pre-cook. That's plenty of "work" as I myself run her for groceries and errands as frequently as once a week.

 

They live in subsidized housing and each receive disability income from the gov't. When wise, they make ends meet. When they fall short if making ends meet, they ask for people to respond charitably. That works. You know what wouldn't work? What wouldn't work is if our little Church had to pay for their rent (full cost apartment) and all expenses, and provide all transportation, and cover all medical treatment costs (at US rates) month upon month, year after year, for all the time until death broke our "charitable" bond to them.

 

Instead I'm quite glad that through taxation the majority of my country has said: "See to it that people receive all needed healthcare, and that fully disababled folks always will have a low livable income, and that low income families will all be eligible for subsidized apartments, and that people too disabled to use public transit will be provided a transit-cost transportation system appropriate to their needs." -- if, collectively we all provide for those things, individual charity should be able to take them up to reasonable quality of life.

 

That's what's good about public education too: "See to it that a reasonable, free, public education is made available to every child." -- I'm happy that's around, because, even if education was merely a "garunteed privilege" kind if right, and not quite an innate right -- it's good to take it seriously as a whole.

 

Not everyone has generous neighbours. There needs to be full coverage. Extra-charitable people can top it up, but providing everything is too much to expect to be spontaneously and perpetually offered to every poor or suffering individual.

[Mergath]

Oh dang mergath.

 

I'm all for ignoring AbigailAdams there because I think this was a nice interesting discussion until that point.

 

I donate to Catholic charities exclusively. Because I share their beliefs about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and so forth. I know for a fact that catholic charities give to anyone and everyone who shows up! regardless if their religious beliefs or lack of them.

 

Now if we wanted to get political... I could go there....

 

But I don't think tithing necessarily means only people in that church receive from the tithe. In Roman Catholic terms, your tithe is your charitable contribution within the church as a whole. Not just what is passed in the basket. And even what goes in the basket is not always just for church needs. Many times it is not.

 

With certain topics, I just can't help myself.  And believe me, I've tried. ;)

 

I know there are churches that give to anyone regardless of religious belief, and I applaud them for their generosity.  I just don't think that, in absence of government programs, there would be enough of them willing to give without religious restriction to fill the gap.  We have a lot of disabled and elderly in this country who can't support themselves though no fault of their own.  I also worry that if churches became the primary source of support for these people, it would become much more tempting for more churches to impose a lot of requirements that non-Christians wouldn't be able to meet.  I know there are many churches that wouldn't do that, but sadly, I think many would.  

[bolt.]

I'd say that many disabled and needy folk would soon learn how to sing hymns for their supper: no matter how they really felt about Jesus. Wouldn't you?

[Mergath]

I'd say that many disabled and needy folk would soon learn how to sing hymns for their supper: no matter how they really felt about Jesus. Wouldn't you?

 

I'm sure they would. :(  I suppose that would be the point.

[Heidi]

Don't non-religious people help others? Are there not charities and non-profit organizations that are not church related or exclusively Christian? Just commenting on the assumption that churches alone wouldn't be able to keep up. Why would it be left to the churches? I think people, even non-Christians would step up. Maybe I'm dead wrong. Who was it that said that freedom was for a moral people, and that the more we fall away from morality, the more need we have for restrictions on that freedom? As a country, we may not be moral enough to deserve that kind of freedom. Perhaps we do need the government to take take of us bc we refuse to help our neighbor. That's sad to me.

Sorry for the derailment.

[mommymilkies]

Oh dang mergath.

 

I'm all for ignoring AbigailAdams there because I think this was a nice interesting discussion until that point.

 

I donate to Catholic charities exclusively. Because I share their beliefs about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and so forth. I know for a fact that catholic charities give to anyone and everyone who shows up! regardless if their religious beliefs or lack of them.

 

Now if we wanted to get political... I could go there....

 

But I don't think tithing necessarily means only people in that church receive from the tithe. In Roman Catholic terms, your tithe is your charitable contribution within the church as a whole. Not just what is passed in the basket. And even what goes in the basket is not always just for church needs. Many times it is not.

The problem is that not all do, and even when they do, there's not always enough to help more than a small percentage of who needs help.  Here there are a couple who do.  And many more who consider collecting mittens or sending money to missions overseas to be all they do, while the community suffers.  Mergath is right, despite some doing well over the ages, many more do not help out-starvation, for example, is still a very relevant problem in this world, and not for the first time in history.  I'd argue it's getting better in many places for people, while worse in others.

[Crimson Wife]

Don't non-religious people help others? Are there not charities and non-profit organizations that are not church related or exclusively Christian?

Of course. Studies, however, show that those who are active in a religious congregation give a significantly larger percentage of their income on average to charity than those who are not. Certainly people who are not religious could donate to secular charities and/or join secular service organizations (Lions Club, Kiwanis, etc.) There just isn't the extra "nudge" to put others above self that comes from the Bible and other religious texts. I know that I am going to have to face God someday and account for how well I put His teachings into practice. A non-religious person doesn't have that kind of motivation to act ethically.

[bolt.]

I think there have always been humanitarian charitable impulses -- in fact, I don't see any discernible difference (in my experience) between the religious impulse towards charity and the secular one. However Churches are organized, and people kinda know that they can approach religious establishments when they are needy -- they are more obvious, and they use their social relationships to one another to re-enforce the norm of charitably. Also, in (some) Churches, people of different socioeconomic statuses meet and mix more so than would happen naturally. Secular people are sometimes limited in their social circle, and would need to make a distinct "charitable" effort to get out of that: to make donations, or join groups, or be personally involved with the needy kind of spontaneously -- which they do. Religious people join Churches for religious reasons, then get the charity impulse affirmed without actually seeking it.

 

So, it works both ways, but it works differently.

[SailorMom]

I do not think "publicly funded education" is a right.  I don't think the government should even have a hand in it at all. 

If anything, it should be a State's rights issue, not federal.  A state could use their better educational system to attract more people and businesses - and there would be competition and improvement.  Jefferson said you can't have a democracy without an educated citizenry - but we supposedly have an "educated" citizenry and it isn't looking too good....  Because we have government institutions running the schools.  Consider the Postal Service, Medicare, Social Security, etc.?  I'd love to hear about government programs that actually worked well, lol.

Is education a natural right?  Sure, in the way that we are all given the ability to learn and be rational creatures.  Obviously young kids can't control their learning environment, and before compulsory education this was a problem for a lot of people.  How would the US handle that?  Not sure, but even a voucher system that people can use wherever they want would be a good start and would also encourage competition and improvement. 

[MomatHWTK]

Notwithstanding recent briefs by the Justice Department, education is still a state issue.  Federal involvement in education, as in many other areas comes only as a result of acceptance of Federal funding. States that wish to receive federal funds for various matters have to accept the federal mandates that accompany those funds (think speed limits, etc.)

[SailorMom]

Notwithstanding recent briefs by the Justice Department, education is still a state issue.  Federal involvement in education, as in many other areas comes only as a result of acceptance of Federal funding. States that wish to receive federal funds for various matters have to accept the federal mandates that accompany those funds (think speed limits, etc.)

Yes - but what state isn't going to be bribed?  More money - heck yeah!  We have to do whatever were told?  No problem! 

[Murphy101]

Part of the problem is that as countries develop, the expectations increase. That's not a bad thing in my book, but it does make the charity option increasingly unaffordable. In the 19th century, tending to another person's illness might mean - as in Jane Austen - getting the eldest daughter of a poor family to come up to the big house for some soup for the ailing mother. Now it might mean a million dollars worth of surgery and recovery for that mother's heart defect. I think that most of us could still manage the soup, but how many could pay for the heart surgery?

Which is why I am pro universal healthcare. (which is not what this ACA fiasco is.) I think if done properly, if would free hospitals to be more charitable and affordable.

 

And getting back to education: I could charitably teach the local children to read at weekends, but I don't have the time to get them to the level of education that would allow them to function in this society. For that matter, even in the 19th century in Britain, if you wanted to learn a trade you were either born into it or you paid a large sum to a skilled worker for your child to apprentice. And as for charity schools: the school I went to was founded in a merchant's will in 1634 for the education of poor children. But it only had a handful of pupils in what was even then a bustling city. How far did the charity reach?

 

L

It also begs the question, why didn't more people avail themselves of it? You would be surprised how hard it can be to get people to go to a charity. It doesn't matter how kind the folks are, some people just won't do it.

 

This is true even with compulsory education. (And why I'm against compulsory education.) No amount of dragging a horse to the water will make it drink. If anything the very act of dragging to the water seems to lessen the desire to drink even if they are desperately parched.

[Mom23Boys]

History has shown on many occasions that this simply isn't true, and most of what I hear people say on this forum reinforces that.  People won't magically step up and take care of their neighbors in need in the absence of government.  They'll watch them starve, then go online and criticize them after the fact as being lazy and worthless.

 

The government has no choice but to "immorally" collect taxes and use them for the welfare of the country as a whole, because from what I see here, the extent of most people's "morals" is that if you lay a hand on their money, they'll shoot you.

 

If you can't tell, I get sick of the hypocrisy.  We both know that the people who refer to taxes as stealing are not going to voluntarily give anything to the poor.

 

 

I agree with you.  And, I don't understand why people think people would automatically step up and start giving if government support was cut.  There is nothing keeping them from giving now, so what would be different?

 

At the point in time we qualified for WIC, we chose not to take it.  Why? Because we had family who helped us out and we would rather that money be used for people who do not have that family support.  This is *not* a pat on our back or anything, I am just pointing out that our family had the resources, stepped up, helped us out and therefore more resources where available for those who didn't have that help.  If more people did that on a larger scale, it would help a lot. For us, it kept us from needing to use WIC, for others, they may still need WIC or other help, but their quality of life would be improved. 

 

[Crimson Wife]

Ok, I'll offer another wrench into the discussion:  education for illegal aliens...  Is that a right? In Texas we can't tell exactly but some estimate it to be somewhere between 150,000 and 400,000 ( the 400,000 is the number that don't have a social security number for their child)  .  Even if it is the lower number, that costs 1 billion.  I got these figures from this article: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20101205-an-educated-guess-on-texas-students-in-the-u.s.-illegally.ece

 

In some ways, I think yes because it isn't the child's fault. We need   But at the same time, we are approaching a HUGE number in our state's schools and their parents are not paying the taxes to help at all...  I'm not sure what the answer is..

Yes, but I think we should be deducting that amount from the aid we provide to Mexico, El Salvador, and the other countries that are the home countries of the foreign nationals enrolled in American schools.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I do not think "publicly funded education" is a right.  I don't think the government should even have a hand in it at all. 

If anything, it should be a State's rights issue, not federal.  A state could use their better educational system to attract more people and businesses - and there would be competition and improvement.  Jefferson said you can't have a democracy without an educated citizenry - but we supposedly have an "educated" citizenry and it isn't looking too good....  Because we have government institutions running the schools.  Consider the Postal Service, Medicare, Social Security, etc.?  I'd love to hear about government programs that actually worked well, lol.

Is education a natural right?  Sure, in the way that we are all given the ability to learn and be rational creatures.  Obviously young kids can't control their learning environment, and before compulsory education this was a problem for a lot of people.  How would the US handle that?  Not sure, but even a voucher system that people can use wherever they want would be a good start and would also encourage competition and improvement. 

 

Actually the Postal Service works extremely well and its current budget issues have more to do with restrictive rules regarding pensions and future health benefits pushed on to it by Congress.

Social Security has been highly successful as well over its history.

[Χά�ων]

Actually the Postal Service works extremely well and its current budget issues have more to do with restrictive rules regarding pensions and future health benefits pushed on to it by Congress.

Social Security has been highly successful as well over its history.

This. Most people do not know that every time the post office hires someone they are required to fully fund that employees retirement at the date of hire.

[Murphy101]

Actually there IS a lot that the govt does that prevents people from acting charitably. I cannot legally just open my front door and start serving soup. I'd face fines and more legal problems. Same goes for giving someone my dh's unused unopened insulin and needles. (He switched insulin and went to a pump. We had months worth that we couldn't use. Legally? We should have thrown it away. We gave it to someone. That's illegal.) If my neighbor died and had no family for her child, I can't just take her in. Legally she has to be placed in foster care.

 

There are many kind people frustrated with how red tape makes it difficult to be charitable.

[TeacherZee]

Ok, I'll offer another wrench into the discussion:  education for illegal aliens...  Is that a right? In Texas we can't tell exactly but some estimate it to be somewhere between 150,000 and 400,000 ( the 400,000 is the number that don't have a social security number for their child)  .  Even if it is the lower number, that costs 1 billion.  I got these figures from this article: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20101205-an-educated-guess-on-texas-students-in-the-u.s.-illegally.ece

 

In some ways, I think yes because it isn't the child's fault. We need   But at the same time, we are approaching a HUGE number in our state's schools and their parents are not paying the taxes to help at all...  I'm not sure what the answer is.. 

My answer is still yes.

 

They might not pay taxes on income, but they do pay sales tax for example.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually there IS a lot that the govt does that prevents people from acting charitably. I cannot legally just open my front door and start serving soup. I'd face fines and more legal problems. Same goes for giving someone my dh's unused unopened insulin and needles. (He switched insulin and went to a pump. We had months worth that we couldn't use. Legally? We should have thrown it away. We gave it to someone. That's illegal.) If my neighbor died and had no family for her child, I can't just take her in. Legally she has to be placed in foster care.

 

There are many kind people frustrated with how red tape makes it difficult to be charitable.

 

The bolded is not completely true.  I also think it is a good thing that people can't randomly take in children with zero oversight.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My answer is still yes.

 

They might not pay taxes on income, but they do pay sales tax for example.

 

In addition, if they are working illegally, they are likely working for below market wages and their labor is being used to artificially lower the cost of agricultural products.

[La Texican]

I don't think they should. They're not worried about the ones that are from here, and now they want to go out of their way to help the ones that are here illegally.

[Rosie_0801]

Don't non-religious people help others? Are there not charities and non-profit organizations that are not church related or exclusively Christian? Just commenting on the assumption that churches alone wouldn't be able to keep up. Why would it be left to the churches? I think people, even non-Christians would step up. Maybe I'm dead wrong. Who was it that said that freedom was for a moral people, and that the more we fall away from morality, the more need we have for restrictions on that freedom? As a country, we may not be moral enough to deserve that kind of freedom. Perhaps we do need the government to take take of us bc we refuse to help our neighbor. That's sad to me.

Sorry for the derailment.

 

Our city's Muslim community is pretty active with regards to international disasters. I'm not sure how much they do locally, but we live in one of those nanny states so perhaps there isn't a lot of need in our Muslim communities. I know there is a Pagan food bank but it's not terribly active, since most of that pagan community is lower socio economic itself. There's a soup kitchen run out of the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, but I don't know who donates to that. My aunt would donate fresh veggies to the local food bank if there was one, but there isn't. She gives to people she comes across in her travels. There's a couple who work opposite shifts so there's always one at home with their baby, and a few others. I think she met them through the local community garden.

 

Still, I agree with Martha about the stupid red tape that can get in the way.

 

[SailorMom]

Uh - Social Security is basically bankrupt and politicians have been raiding the coffers for years, and are struggling to keep it afloat.

The Post Office runs at a loss every year, and if Congress is foisting rules on them, well, uh - Congress is part of the government, that runs the Post Office.... 

 

[Renee in NC]

In addition, if they are working illegally, they are likely working for below market wages and their labor is being used to artificially lower the cost of agricultural products.

 

And for those working in many industries, they ARE paying into the Social Security system, and will never get that money back.

[Renee in NC]

In addition, if they are working illegally, they are likely working for below market wages and their labor is being used to artificially lower the cost of agricultural products.

 

And for those working in many industries, they ARE paying into the Social Security system, and will never get that money back.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Uh - Social Security is basically bankrupt and politicians have been raiding the coffers for years, and are struggling to keep it afloat.

The Post Office runs at a loss every year, and if Congress is foisting rules on them, well, uh - Congress is part of the government, that runs the Post Office....

My apologies. I struggle discussing complex topics in sound bites.

[MBM]

Uh - Social Security is basically bankrupt and politicians have been raiding the coffers for years, and are struggling to keep it afloat.

The Post Office runs at a loss every year, and if Congress is foisting rules on them, well, uh - Congress is part of the government, that runs the Post Office.... 

 

No, SS is not bankrupt and politicians have not been raiding the coffers for years. (Some politicians are fighting over it, though, because they and their friends want to use the funds so they can profit from it.)

 

The problem is that most people do not understand how SS is funded and what affects it. My husband works on a part of SS and personally knows the SS Chief Actuary. On rare occasions they have met to discuss matters. Anyway, the SS Chief Actuary has been tolerating a lot of political B.S. in the past decade or so. He puts up with it so that innocent people won't find themselves in dire situations.

 

If you want to delve deeper into SS issues, the best resource I can think of off the top of my head is Contingencies magazine.

 

The USPS is also in a political battle.