end private education

[sandaltan]

Fuk off communist. Take your ass to China and stay away from our good schools

nah i like socal

better question is why do you live in a state where your vote for president doesnt count?

[wincel]

LOL thats terrible acting!

youll be alright wincey

there are lots of good governments around the world. lots of bad ones too. the US isnt perfect but it could be a lot worse.

Switzerland seems legit tbh. No war since 1847? CERN is there? An international gem...a place for citizens of the world who believe in peace. If I could go there, I would. I just don't know if I am ready to give up on America yet. It is hard to get into Switzerland. Maybe if I find a teaching job there? IDK...

[isingmodel]

Switzerland seems legit tbh. No war since 1847? CERN is there? An international gem...a place for citizens of the world who believe in peace. If I could go there, I would. I just don't know if I am ready to give up on America yet. It is hard to get into Switzerland. Maybe if I find a teaching job there? IDK...

Switzerland is apparently boring af. Everything seems amazing on paper but people say it's just so dull to live there and the locals are generally unfriendly and quite xenophobic towards certain types. Though I guess if you're an introvert it might be perfect...

[TurbanMon]

Fuk off communist. Take your ass to China and stay away from our good schools

i think the great irony in your statement is that primary and secondary educations in China are far superior to those here. Only their universities suck.

[wincel]

Switzerland is apparently boring af. Everything seems amazing on paper but people say it's just so dull to live there and the locals are generally unfriendly and quite xenophobic towards certain types. Though I guess if you're an introvert it might be perfect...

I am an introvert. I know most here would never have guessed. They have good reason to be xenophobic. Compared to Switzerland, the rest of the planet is completely savage and batchit insane.

[sandaltan]

i wonder if we'll ever see sy again

some people would change their name and move to another country

#pray4sy

[isingmodel]

i wonder if we'll ever see sy again

some people would change their name and move to another country

#pray4sy

The best part is that she probably considers herself a "constitutional conservative"

Wait what's the 6th amendment? Never heard of that Pokemon!

[sy2502]

thanks sy, i love it when non-lawyer lay people explain to licensed attorneys how their job works

the courts do, in fact, regularly appoint attorneys to work for defendants, against their will. nobody cares what the ABA says. it has no authority over licensed attorneys.

Please tell us of the cases where the cops took down a poor lawyer's door to drag him into court, can't wait to hear it.

the RIGHT to an attorney is enshrined in the SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION. the state bars where attorneys are licensed enforce this right, not the ABA. if youre a defendant in a criminal case, the court WILL appoint you an attorney as a RIGHT, even if the attorney doesnt want to do the job, and even if the defendant cant pay. the attorney does not have the right to withdraw, and if they dont do the work they'll face suspension, fines and/or disbarment. See Gideon v. Wainwright (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/372/335.html) and maybe try reading the 6th amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ixth_amendment

"The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right and essential to a fair trial" (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/372/335.html)

once again, you have absolutely zero clue what youre talking about

LOL

Oh dear god, did you even read the case before posting it?
The case has nothing to do with forcing a lawyer to represent people. It has to do with weather the person in question had a right to free representation in this particular case.

"Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses."

Let's remind ourselves what the 6th Amendment says, shall we?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

That means people do not have the right to counsel in EVERY TRIAL only in CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. Gideon was about whether Florida could narrow that even further by providing counsel only for capital offences, which a respected lawyer like yourself should know, is a subset of criminal offences.

So no Gideon has nothing to do with the cops taking down the door of a lawyer because he didn't want to represent an indigent person, but thank you for showing us your reading comprehension skills are close to zero. I seriously hope you are NOT a lawyer because I feel sorry for any poor bastard whose life is decided by your lawyering skills.

As for the Constitution calling it a right, as I mentioned in the previous post, there are various categories of rights. There's legal rights vs natural rights, which is the case here. You have the natural right of freedom from forced labor unless that's your punishment for a crime and you went through the due process of law (5th Amendment, cough cough), and there's the legal right to counsel (6th Amendment). Natural rights being "inalienable rights", they will always take precedence over legal rights. That should be obvious to a 5 year old: the law cannot establish the legal right to own slaves because it would go against the natural right to freedom.

Sounds like you should go back to law school, buddy.

[isingmodel]

Please tell us of the cases where the cops took down a poor lawyer's door to drag him into court, can't wait to hear it.



Oh dear god, did you even read the case before posting it?
The case has nothing to do with forcing a lawyer to represent people. It has to do with weather the person in question had a right to free representation in this particular case.

"Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses."

Let's remind ourselves what the 6th Amendment says, shall we?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

That means people do not have the right to counsel in EVERY TRIAL only in CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. Gideon was about whether Florida could narrow that even further by providing counsel only for capital offences, which a respected lawyer like yourself should know, is a subset of criminal offences.

So no Gideon has nothing to do with the cops taking down the door of a lawyer because he didn't want to represent an indigent person, but thank you for showing us your reading comprehension skills are close to zero. I seriously hope you are NOT a lawyer because I feel sorry for any poor bastard whose life is decided by your lawyering skills.

As for the Constitution calling it a right, as I mentioned in the previous post, there are various categories of rights. There's legal rights vs natural rights, which is the case here. You have the natural right of freedom from forced labor unless that's your punishment for a crime and you went through the due process of law (5th Amendment, cough cough), and there's the legal right to counsel (6th Amendment). Natural rights being "inalienable rights", they will always take precedence over legal rights. That should be obvious to a 5 year old: the law cannot establish the legal right to own slaves because it would go against the natural right to freedom.

Sounds like you should go back to law school, buddy.

Woah nice changing the goalposts there buddy. Your first claim was that nobody can have the right to somebody else's labour, full stop.

You were then shown that the Constitution does recognise a right to other people's labour in certain situations. Now you're moving to "yeah but that's a legal right, that's different".

If someone can have a right to legal counsel then someone can have a right to healthcare. It doesn't matter if you don't consider it a natural right (the concept of natural rights is self contradictory anyway), society can still recognise it as a right if it chooses to and is willing to enforce it.

So yeah, moving the goalposts isn't going to save your crappy attempt at an argument. Time to give it up.

[BearyManilowe]

I get the feeling this thread is no longer about private education.

[sy2502]

bla bla bla

Q: Can the government force anyone to work for it?
A: NO. Forced labor is illegal. 18 U.S. Code § 1589.
Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person--
(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;
(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Q: So how does the government get public defenders?
A: there are 2 ways. Lawyers hired by public defender's office, a government-funded agency that provides legal representation to indigent defendants, and external lawyers who have agreed to represent indigent defendants, with appointment being either on a contractual basis, through which the lawyer accepts an agreed number of cases from the court for the term of the contract, or a case-by-case basis. These people are hired not forced

Q: But what if they can't get enough lawyers to agree to be public defenders?
A: welcome to today's world, where the scarcity of public defenders is a very well known problem. If it was as easy as forcing people to do the job we wouldn't be having this problem, would we now?

Q: So what if there's nobody available to represent me?
A: there are 2 possibilities:
1) Request for a case dismissal or a mistrial. That's done routinely when the constitutionality of a trial comes into question. Examples are when evidence was obtained illegally (4th Amendment, search and seizures), when the trial would result in double jeopardy (5th Amendment), when the defendant was forced to self incriminate (5th Amendment), when the trial is taking too long (6th Amendment, speedy trial).
2) If the trial is still to proceed, you will do what millions of people are doing right now: sit in jail waiting for a public defender to become available. This can easily mean months.

Q: Wouldn't that violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial?
A: bingo! Now you understand the problem of calling "right" something that can only be afforded by taking away another "right".

Q: So the right to representation is not a good example of being entitled to other people's work?
A: it would be if things worked the way isingmodel thought it worked. The way it actually works, no.

Q: So isingmodel calls himself an expert but doesn't know any of these things?
A: clearly the word "expert" doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

Q: How is he going to react to being shown to be completely wrong and ignorant about something he thought he was an expert of?
A: he's going to throw a tantrum like a 5 year old, stomp his feet, scream and call me names. It's ok, on my way home from work I bought a box of crayons, he can take them to his safe space until he's over his tantrum.

[Jaroctor]

Depends on what you mean by education. Trade schools are a form of education, should they only be public also?

Trade schools (or at the very least, certain trades) should be open and subsidized for everyone. Allowing people to be useful to society shouldn't depend on their ability to afford it.

[sy2502]

saldatan? isinmodel? You guys still there? I didn't scare you away, did I?

[isingmodel]

snip

So the summary of this is that people do have a right to legal representation, provided by the state at no cost to the party.

That is, as per your own definition, someone can make a just/legitimate claim to have a lawyer represent them, and have this claim rightfully enforced by the state.

Yeah well done, you made our point for us. Try harder next time/don't try and shift your failing argument halfway through.

[sy2502]

So the summary of this is that people do have a right to legal representation, provided by the state at no cost to the party.

That is, as per your own definition, someone can make a just/legitimate claim to have a lawyer represent them, and have this claim rightfully enforced by the state.

Yes to the 1st and no to the 2nd. I really don't know why it's so hard for you to get it, I spelled it out for you very clearly and easily. I am truly at a loss on how to dumb it down even more for you to get it. Public defendant is a government job just like any other job. Are you taking advantage of somebody's time, work, and energy when you go to the DMV because a government employee is providing you a service? Please do embarrass yourself saying yes, because DMV lazy azzholes working for you out of the goodness of their heart just to uphold your rights is hysterical, but at this point I'd expect anything from you.

Yeah well done, you made our point for us.

Nope.

[isingmodel]

Yes to the 1st and no to the 2nd. I really don't know why it's so hard for you to get it, I spelled it out for you very clearly and easily. I am truly at a loss on how to dumb it down even more for you to get it. Public defendant is a government job just like any other job. Are you taking advantage of somebody's time, work, and energy when you go to the DMV because a government employee is providing you a service? Please do embarrass yourself saying yes, because DMV lazy azzholes working for you out of the goodness of their heart just to uphold your rights is hysterical, but at this point I'd expect anything from you.



Nope.

A legal right here is just an entitlement to the use of a service which will be provided for you regardless of your ability to pay. That can be a public defender, it can be a doctor, it can be anything society wants it to be.

Your argument started off as "nobody can have a right to healthcare", after which you quickly switched to "bbbbbbut that's a legal right, not a natural right" because as always you were talking out of your ass.

If you recognise that legal rights are a real thing then people can in every sense of the word have a right to healthcare, or whatever else. This literally should not be difficult to grasp even for someone as vacuous as you.

[sy2502]

A legal right here is just an entitlement to the use of a service which will be provided for you regardless of your ability to pay. That can be a public defender, it can be a doctor, it can be anything society wants it to be.

Ohhhhh!! So FINALLY you figured out it's called a right, but it's really a service. Damn, I still have some hopes for you!

Your argument started off as "nobody can have a right to healthcare", after which you quickly switched to "bbbbbbut that's a legal right, not a natural right" because as always you were talking out of your ass.

Ahhh so you do NOT get it. So you don't know the difference between natural right and legal right. Ok, free lesson:

Natural right: something you already have and is wrong for others to take away from you. Like your life, or your freedom.
Legal right: we make a law or a legal agreement that you'll get something for something else.

What's the difference?
Natural right: you already have what it is you have a right to. People would have to spend time or money to take it AWAY from you. The right is not contingent upon any circumstance. Your right to privacy is not contingent on whether it's convenient for the cops to not search you for no good reason. We can't tell the cops "hey, whenever it's convenient for you, if you don't mind, could you please not search people without probable cause? Thank you, that's so nice of you". They can't, period. They do, they go to jail.
Legal right: it's something you don't have and people have to spend time and money to give it to you. Because of that, it is contingent on circumstances. Right to legal representation is contingent on a public defendant being available to represent you. If there isn't any, you simply have to wait as long as it takes to get one. You cannot punish a public defendant because he's so overworked that he can't defend you until 6 months from now. Even when that violates your right. By the way, you do know you pay for it anyway right? You paid for it all your life with the taxes you paid. Just saying, in case you never thought about it...

If you recognise that legal rights are a real thing then people can in every sense of the word have a right to healthcare, or whatever else. This literally should not be difficult to grasp even for someone as vacuous as you.

No.

[acrawlingchaos]

We should do just the opposite. I think the power of choice needs to be given to the citizen. In fact, I think ALL education should be private with a voucher system so that the free market can actually fight to for the privilege of educating our children.

[isingmodel]

Ohhhhh!! So FINALLY you figured out it's called a right, but it's really a service. Damn, I still have some hopes for you!

The "right" part is the part where a person has a just claim, or entitlement, to said service.

A luxury spa massage is a service, but I have no just claim to use it, I can only use it if I pay for it.

Legal counsel is a service, but I do have a just claim to it, whether I can pay for it or not, or whether I have ever paid a single dime in tax or not, and this will be mandated and enforced by the legal system.

This is the same definition of right which you so kindly provided for us on the previous page:

Dictionary definition of "right": something to which one has a just claim (Merriam Webster).

So if someone has a just claim (ie. they are not considered to be doing something immoral, or illegal in the process) to use a service such as legal defense, then that is a right, as per your own definition.

It's obvious that you are not an intelligent person, but if you can't even stay consistent with your own argument for just one or two pages, then you really have no business being here.

[wincel]

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcont...&context=smulr

it's a controversial issue...right to counsel conflicts with freedom from involuntary servitude

[isingmodel]

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcont...&context=smulr

it's a controversial issue...right to counsel conflicts with freedom from involuntary servitude

It shouldn't really be. If a lawyer has signed up to work as a public defender then their employment stipulates defending people publicly...

No lawyer has ever been physically forced at gunpoint and in chains, to defend someone. They might get fired or suspended or something if they refuse, but that's the same as breaching the contract of any job. Then they'd just find another lawyer to provide the defense for said person.

[wincel]

It shouldn't really be. If a lawyer has signed up to work as a public defender then their employment stipulates defending people publicly...

No lawyer has ever been physically forced at gunpoint and in chains, to defend someone. They might get fired or suspended or something if they refuse, but that's the same as breaching the contract of any job. Then they'd just find another lawyer to provide the defense for said person.

An interesting case is that a military lawyer is basically held at gunpoint. Reason is, any choice to not serve would be seen as a violation of orders...

The law is full of contradictions if you scrutinize it. Thankfully, this never really becomes an issue because there is usually some attorney willing to take the case.

[isingmodel]

An interesting case is that a military lawyer is basically held at gunpoint. Reason is, any choice to not serve would be seen as a violation of orders...

The law is full of contradictions if you scrutinize it. Thankfully, this never really becomes an issue because there is usually some attorney willing to take the case.

Oh definitely, I mean conscription is peak involuntary servitude which the US has had no problem using multiple times

[compan]

Switzerland seems legit tbh. No war since 1847? CERN is there? An international gem...a place for citizens of the world who believe in peace. If I could go there, I would. I just don't know if I am ready to give up on America yet. It is hard to get into Switzerland. Maybe if I find a teaching job there? IDK...

Do you know how expensive it is to live in Switzerland?

[wincel]

Do you know how expensive it is to live in Switzerland?

Worth the price of a free conscience knowing I wouldn't live in a jingoistic imperial police state

[sy2502]

The "right" part is the part where a person has a just claim, or entitlement, to said service.

A luxury spa massage is a service, but I have no just claim to use it, I can only use it if I pay for it.

Legal counsel is a service, but I do have a just claim to it, whether I can pay for it or not, or whether I have ever paid a single dime in tax or not, and this will be mandated and enforced by the legal system.

This is the same definition of right which you so kindly provided for us on the previous page:



So if someone has a just claim (ie. they are not considered to be doing something immoral, or illegal in the process) to use a service such as legal defense, then that is a right, as per your own definition.

I am glad you finally understand that a "right" unless it's a natural right, is more like a service, it took you longer than it should have, you are really dense my friend.
So what does "right to representation mean"? Does it mean you just show up one day at a lawyer's office and yell "You must represent me! For free! Because it's my right!" No. Feel free to try it, but I can tell you right now, no. But I do know that's what you intend with "right to health". You want to just walk into a doctor's office and expect to be treated without paying. And the answer is, again, no.

It's obvious that you are not an intelligent person, but if you can't even stay consistent with your own argument for just one or two pages, then you really have no business being here.

You have made no argument to speak of, so you are in no position to talk about intelligence, yours, mine, or anyone else. Your "argument" has been "gimme gimme gimme". That's what a child does with candy. Grow up.

[isingmodel]

snip

You keep trying to create your own version of what you think has happened ITT or what anyone's argument is, because you have spewing meaningless vomit for this whole conversation.

I used your own provided definition of a right to show you that it is perfectly possible and consistent to have a right to things like a legal defense, if society decides it so and legislates it so. A right is a just claim to something. That's your own definition. If someone has a just claim to legal representation and the state will enforce and provide this for them, then it is a right, by your definition.

Seriously you need to give up trying to discuss serious, adult topics. You obviously can't stay consistent with your own definitions and logic because you aren't very smart and also seem to have a terrible memory. Two things which basically make you 100% unqualified to engage in such discussion.

[sy2502]

Q: How is he going to react to being shown to be completely wrong and ignorant about something he thought he was an expert of?
A: he's going to throw a tantrum like a 5 year old, stomp his feet, scream and call me names. It's ok, on my way home from work I bought a box of crayons, he can take them to his safe space until he's over his tantrum.

This literally should not be difficult to grasp even for someone as vacuous as you.

It's obvious that you are not an intelligent person, but if you can't even stay consistent with your own argument for just one or two pages, then you really have no business being here.

You keep trying to create your own version of what you think has happened ITT or what anyone's argument is, because you have spewing meaningless vomit for this whole conversation.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

By the way funny that you did not answer to the meat of the discussion, which was:
you think a right to X means government gets you free stuff.
You used "right to healthcare" to say "we should be able to walk into any doctor or hospital and get free treatment, and the government should force those places to give us free care".
You used right to free representation as an example.
You were shown that analogy is retarded because right to legal representation does NOT mean you can just walk into a lawyer's office and say "represent me for free!! It's my right!!!" You were explained in great detail why that is not the case with a long discussion on the concept of rights.
You reacted with "you meanie poo poo head, I'm gonna tell mommy".

Get the phuk out of here!

[isingmodel]

blah blah blah my mother drank too much ditch vodka

Pack it up and try not to be such a sore loser about things. You defined a right as having a just claim to things. If someone can have a just claim to a service, then they have a right to that service, as per your own definition. End of story.

The right to freedom of expression also doesn't mean you can walk onto a plane and threaten to blow the thing up, without being arrested and detained, and then claim that it was just a prank and that you were merely expressing your right to free speech.

The fact that rights can have conditions and limitations has absolutely no bearing on the issue being discussed here. We are talking about what defines a right in the first place, which is: having a just claim to something. Therefore healthcare can absolutely be a right, by the very kindly provided definition you gave us.

Take the L like you do in every thread and just move on, we are getting nowhere with you.

[Techriding101]

So when people don't trust the government funded system to teach their children, the government now forces them?

Healthcare is already free, it's called diet and exercise. No one cares when a drug addict overdoes, no one cares when someone else dies due to health issues.

Get ****ed