Discussion Continued

We may have some disagreement over the composition of our natural, unalienable rights. LongShot tends to limit the role of government to "protect[ing] us from the criminals and foreign attack." However, in the Declaration of Independence, our unalienable rights are described as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By the time the Constitution was framed, the goals of government were described as " to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The expansion of government interests and activities beyond mere defense and protection from criminals rests on the concepts of "pursuit of happiness" and "promot[ing] the general welfare."

Since these expressions are deployed in our fundamental documents of "social contract," no one can argue that the government is not authorized to pursue these goals. It can be argued, of course, that not everyone will profit from any particular act attempting to promote the general welfare. But as early as John Locke, there is a strong argument for majority will in government acts, and our own procedures obviously lean toward the majority or some "super majority."

Before moving on, it is also important to remember that our Bill of Rights explicates specific rights of individuals so that we can make sure that acts of the majority cannot infringe upon rights of individuals. We also have a justice system that can carry us all the way to the Supreme Court where acts of the government can be declared unconstitutional. The government in the mode of acting for the general welfare must be careful not to trod on the rights of a minority or an individual.

Finally, then, I want to return to the issue of public education. Only a decade or so after the creation of our government, it was argued that public education should be provided so that every individual citizen can really pursue his/her happiness in life and contribute to the general welfare by achieving a level of intelligence worthy of a democratic society. This does not strip the underlying society of its right to create educational opportunities, including "home schooling." But it is taken seriously enough that it sees the creation of minimal standards to which students have a right as justified. In my mind, there is nothing in this that infinges on other people's rights, as LongShot asserts. In particular, no one is obligated to become a teacher. Indeed, if no one were willing to be a teacher, the system of offering public education would simply fail. [One of the interesting aspects of this issue is that government has taken the issue as one of protecting the child's right to an education so that it has held, on occasion, that parents do not have the right to prevent a child from being educated. If a parent does not want a child to attend public school, he/she must provide an acceptable alternative.]