General Question

mayratapia_'s avatar

Can the Government force you to do things?

Asked by mayratapia_ (368points) September 1st, 2010 from iPhone

Let’s say that tracking devices were being used and the Government decided that it was time to chip every single being for “X” purpose. Can they make you go against your religion and chip you anyway?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

65 Answers

TexasDude's avatar

Is it unconstitutional (in the US at least)? Yes.

Can they force you to do it anyway?


How do you think governments continue to be governments? They have a monopoly on power and violence, which means they can play by the rules only as long as they want to.

llewis's avatar

You could probably avoid it, but perhaps be unable to do anything like get a job or buy food or whatever. That’s what’s prophesied, anyway. Look at social security numbers – they were never intended to be used as identification – the person who came up with the idea was adamantly against using it for ID.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

No. But they can give you an offer you can’t refuse like not being able to drive a car, by property, or make purchases in a cashless society..

iamthemob's avatar


If it’s unconstitutional, they can’t force you to do it. Not at all.

iamthemob's avatar


Nope…they can’t do anything to coerce you into it. Not with this example.

TexasDude's avatar

@iamthemob, when has that ever stopped them before?

This question may not have the best example with the microchip or whatever, but it’s naive to think that the government hasn’t done some really shady, if not outright illegal things to it’s own citizens before.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@iamthemob You’re right—therefore the edit.

iamthemob's avatar


Whether the government has violated constitutional rights…sure…it’s happened.

Whether they could enact policy that was a clear constitutional violation? Nope…not at all. This is an extreme invasion of the implied right of privacy. It is also a vicious unreasonable search and seizure violation. It involves invasion of the BODY, which is pretty sacrosanct.

Something like this would never work…could never be compelled…unless there was a DRASTIC change in the governmental structure or an amendment to the constitution.

bob_'s avatar

They already force you to do things, like paying taxes or obeying the law in general. I guess it’s just a matter of changing the necessary laws.

Trillian's avatar

I never heard of a religion that did not allow chipping. I don’t care. They can chip me if they want. Whoever tracks my whereabouts should bring a good book. I’m relly boring.

iamthemob's avatar


It still doesn’t work though…they cannot do anything to coerce you into submitting to a blatant invasion of your Constitutional rights. People would riot over this and it would never get off the ground.

Those coercions also involve the governmental deprivation of property. That’s a big no no.

Jaxk's avatar

Typically the government will take the long way around the barn. They wouldn’t create a law that says you have to be chipped but they would find a way to make it happen. For instance, the new health care is mandating automation. So to leverage this automation, they would create a system by which a chip implanted would allow ease of coverage. To submit a claim, you need the chip. You get scanned to submit the claim to your insurance. Since everyone is required to carry insurance, you need the chip. Voila, everyone gets a chip with mandating that everyone has to be chipped.

iamthemob's avatar


The federal government cannot enact laws in violation of the Constitution. There are some things that aren’t just a matter of changing’s a matter of rewriting our basic system of rights.

iamthemob's avatar


Civil rights attorneys would be all over this…that proposition wouldn’t last long.

Jaxk's avatar


I’m not sure how to link to your comment but I don’t know what civil rights would be infringed. If you want to drive, you need a driver’s license. If you want to make an insurance claim you need a chip. If you don’t want the chip, don’t make a cliam.

iamthemob's avatar

Driving is a potentially dangerous activity for which we require training. It’s also something governed by state, and not federal law…which is a different scenario…

Driver’s licenses are discriminatory to young people. They are not a recognized group in terms of the 14th amendment which protects you against discriminatory law…so all the state need show is any rational reason for limiting their ability to drive. Young people are rash and aren’t mature enough and may not have developed the necessary motor skills to drive. This puts everyone on the road at risk. Therefore, it passes muster.

The chip in question would require piercing the body. It would allow tracking and invade privacy. It has no reasonable connection to making a health care insurance claim. Therefore, the system would be set to prevent someone from receiving a right for which they’ve paid unless they consent to waive their 4th amendment right preventing unreasonable search and seizure and the implied right of privacy.

Federal Fail.

bob_'s avatar

@iamthemob Yes, when I said laws in general I also meant the Constitution. Nothing is set in stone, you know.

iamthemob's avatar


No doubt – but the constitution is an AMAZINGLY stable document. Aside from development in it’s interpretation…the complete reversal, abrogation, or addition of new rights is incredibly rare.

Qingu's avatar

I’m not sure what the question is asking. Can the government implant a chip in your brain that mind-controls you to go against your religion? Um, no.

However, the whole point of “government” is to use force. (Only police officers and soldiers are allowed to use deadly force—vigilantism is illegal). The government’s job is to enforce laws. Laws are codes that control behavior. If you are doing something against the law, the government can use force to make you stop. Some religious practices are against the law.

iamthemob's avatar


The government is also there to ensure that your rights are protected. Rarely does the force of the law force us to do things that we shouldn’t be doing otherwise. Certain policies are messed up…but most of the laws are there to make sure we can run around fairly smoothly (as a general statement).

bob_'s avatar

@iamthemob And the government requiring chips on everybody wouldn’t be rare?

Jaxk's avatar

Health care is also potentially dangerous and costs us all (at least now with the new health care plan). It also used to be up to the states, alas no longer. States rights no longer exist. They only have the rights left to them by the federal government or not yet taken by them.

We already have urine tests or blood tests to get a job. Finger prints for all sorts of things. No one is required to have a social security number yet we all have them. They find a way. A year ago, I would have thought the Fed Government would not have the authority to force everyone to buy anything, alas no more. The idea of a chip implant would start slowly until we all had them. Probably the GPS part would come later.

Jaxk's avatar

I should add that they forced us all to get Polio vaccine as well. The invasion of the body didn’t stop them. All in our best interest. It always is.

iamthemob's avatar


Yes, they’ve managed to do certain things. However, health care is not dangerous…not in a legal sense. It’s something that you have a right to. That right cannot be made contingent upon your waiver of your Consitutional rights.

States rights completely exist. The government doesn’t absolutely regulate family law, doesn’t regulate state criminal law, doesn’t mandate certain property law or contract law, etc. Yes, it’s been abrogated in some areas…but there’s still a lot of unseemly respect in some areas (the federal reaction to marriage equality with DOMA, for example).

And there are some jobs which require those tests. Not all. I’ve never applied for one. Finger prints aren’t required for anything that I’ve had a right to so far (although gun purchase? maybe?) but that’s a reasonable invasion of privacy (it takes a lot to dust, then search for prints). The SS number I’m not really clear on. However…what difference does it make? (I really don’t know on this one…)

Polio was a national health crisis, and once that was done, it was done. It wasn’t for the purpose of searching you…plus, wasn’t pretty much for minors?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@iamthemob Of course they can and they do it all the time. Coercion is easy. It could start with a government program to simplify the dispersion of social security. They would offer the chips to retired people for convenience and to reduce paperwork and mass mailings of checks—a cost-cutting measure. Eventually, so many people would go for it that it would become policy. Those who didn’t like it could sue, but they wouldn’t win. The government would claim expediency.

Chipping is voluntary at this time. The wealthy have chipped their children. In Mexico, among the “jet set,” chipping is popular because when they are in clubs, they don’t have to go through the process of actually paying, it’s all done through RFID into their accounts. This is haoppoening in Puerto Villarta and Biarritz, France at this very moment. It wonb’t be long before the wannabees will want the same service. Just like the history of the credit card. Once enough people go for it, the government will eventually find it expedient to go exclusively through chip transactions—those who refuse will suffer delays, etc This will become very apparant in the private health care industry first, then mandatory in government health care services.

Right now on my beach, you can’t use a parking meter without a debit or credit card. Discriminatory? Yes. I believe this decision was partly made to keep the “riff raff” off our beaches. Does anybody do anything about it? No. It is a minute minority being disenfranchised.

In this cashless society, where the Constitution is treated like so much toilet paper, I believe it is entirely possible that we could go this way and people’s lives will be tracked just like they can now with credit and debit cards. It is voluntary right now, and is sold as a convenience and becoming increasingly popular outside the US, but just like that mandatory electronic shtip on the back of most driver’s licenses, it will be mandatory.

iamthemob's avatar

But nothing you’ve described is mandatory. I can still pay with cash for nearly everything if I choose. These examples don’t really show how the constitution has been violated in any way…

…I don’t really think the Constitution is being treated like toilet paper either? What brings you to this conclusion?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

You can’t park on my beach using cash. There are many businesses in Palm Beach that won’t take cash. I believe this is an increasing trend.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@iamthemob That is why it is coerced behavior. It is also not mandatory for the drinking age in every state to be 21. But if you want your share of the federal highway money, it better be 21.

iamthemob's avatar

Okay…but what Constitutional right is being violated because of that? Also – are those machines or spaces charging for the city or state or is it private?

Mom2BDec2010's avatar

I think the government could force us to do things even if it isn’t right. I don’t trust any government.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@iamthemob I for one find it discriminatory against poor people that live mainly hand to mouth on cash. Shouldn’t they also allowed a day at the beach of their choice? I think a case could be made. It might be a matter of getting food as the surf fishing is much better here than other beaches because of the bottom and a nearby estuary.

iamthemob's avatar


That’s an example that I agree is wicked lame. But again, it’s linked to a viable federal policy. And, if you consider different states with different drinking ages, unfortunately you get some drunk kids on the highway crossing state lines and endangering lives. There was statistical data supporting the conclusion that to keep interstate highways safe, this should be consistent.

But yes, this is definitely an example. But one.

iamthemob's avatar


If you have a car, you generally have a bank account (not always, I grant you).

But they can still go to the beach, right? They just can’t park there unless they pay by the card.

Further, unfortunately, the poor are not a protected class.

Jaxk's avatar

It’s all about precedent. The federal government does not have the authority to set speed limits either, right? Yet when they wanted a 55mph speed limit, somehow it magically appeared. The feds are deep into health care now and even if administered by the states, have complete control over what will be done. Simply deny funding while mandating coverage. It’s really quite simple. And does not take an act of congress since regulations are handled by Cabinet Secretaries. Realize where the power resides and who has control of the reins.

And yes, the polio vaccines were for minors (and a good thing). Yet many parents didn’t like them. This was controversail but as always, in our best interest.

Ben_Dover's avatar

@iamthemob The US government enacts laws which are unconstitutional all the time. That is why we have Federal Appeals courts and the US Supreme Court.

skfinkel's avatar

No, the government cannot force you to put a chip in your body, not if they follow the constitution. They can make it seem like a great thing, though, so everyone will sign up!
But, the government can certainly make you do other things, like drive on a certain side of the street.

Ben_Dover's avatar

And as the courts (US Supreme Court) whittles away more and more of our Constitutional Rights, the government will be able to force you to do more and more things which were once Unconstitutional…Like testifying against yourself (fifth amendment) and submitting to unreasonable search and seizure (fourth amendment).

iamthemob's avatar


Sure…but states rights go through fits and starts of protection. They’re not dead by any means (unfortunately, the handling of the disaster following Hurricane Katrina is a result of state’s rights in part).

The health insurance reform is huge and there is already litigation about it. It’s a major risk, but no one is taking it lightly.

iamthemob's avatar


Sure…checks and balances and all that. However, they rarely enact laws that are unconstitutional on their face.

So yeah, you’re right, but you’ve mentioned the branch that watches out for that (well, one of them).

iamthemob's avatar


What rights have been whiddled away by the S. Ct. ...which ones are you referring to?

Ben_Dover's avatar

@iamthemob The Judicial Branch does not watch out for it. We must go to the Justices and [plead our case, after we have been convicted of an unconstitutional law.

4th amendment. They have been whittling at that for years now…To the point that the police can search you or your home on the basis of false information and have anything found from that search admissible as evicence against you in a court of law.

5th amendment. The courts are beginning to rule that your Miranda rights may be violated…
It is now up to you to know that you don’t need to speak to the police and that you are able to seek an attorney to represent you without talking at all.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

What is it with this avatar? There’s like twenty new grey yellowed-eyed kittens on Fluther all of a sudden. What’s up with that?

Trillian's avatar

It isn’t April 1st is it?

iamthemob's avatar


Yes, the Supreme Court doesn’t do advisory opinions – cases and contraversies only.

4th – that can be attributed as much to developments in society as anything else. As technology advances, the law has to figure out how new surveillance falls into the the constitution. False information was never out…but if everyone on the chain knows it’s false (informant, police, warrant judge) that’s not going to fly. So what if the information is false? The police have no time to investigate the veracity to ensure it’s true, often.

5th – Hmm…what are you citing for this? Miranda was always a testy subject…

talljasperman's avatar

they have all ready started chipping pets… then electronic leg banding criminals… next children (GPS)... then the elderly (GPS)... then you…
what is the phrase my social studies teacher said… “they go for the weak and I did nothing… they went for the neighbors, and I did nothing… then they came for me and there was none to stop them”

Ben_Dover's avatar

@iamthemob Miranda most certainly has not always been a testy subject. New rulings are coming down these days whereby the alleged suspect is no longer advised of his right to an attorney at each interrogation.
And you are completely wrong regarding the 4th amendment too. Please try to learn about the important subjects before just blowing smoke.
@Espiritus_Corvus I was assigned this kitteh as an avatar when I signed up a few days ago.

Ben_Dover's avatar

@iamthemob You said, ”…but if everyone on the chain knows it’s false (informant, police, warrant judge) that’s not going to fly. ”

LOL…That isa precisely what is flying these days, bucko.

Also, ”So what if the information is false? The police have no time to investigate the veracity to ensure it’s true, often.

The job of the police is to investigate and be sure info is not false. Where do you live? Russia?

snowberry's avatar

yes, well they can track your car without your knowledge… here’s the proof.,8599,2013150,00.html

josie's avatar

Sure. They have the guns and the jail cells, plus the IRS.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Not legally, they can’t, but legality doesn’t seem to be one of their strong suits anymore. If it comes to that, I will probably be dead.

iamthemob's avatar


Ahh, dear, dear Ben_Dover…I adore that you say that I am just blowing smoke, and yet provide no supportive evidence!

Miranda rights have been a controversial subject since the Miranda v. Arizona decision in the 60s. On a basic level, there was always the question of whether or not there should be a need to inform people of their rights when there was an assumption that people were not ignorant of the laws.

And how am I wrong about the 4th amendment? Please let me know, because all you do is say I’m wrong and then don’t say why.

I would like to know what makes you think, however, that you have a more informed opinion than I do about this subject. There seem to be some…well…assumptions here.


iamthemob's avatar


So, Bucko…what are you citing to show that this is what’s flying? Is this the general condition of how warrants are issued?

And the police, based on information from an informant, conduct a search. You are asking them to investigate whether the informant’s information is factually accurate before conducting the search…

…wouldn’t that make the search moot? If there was a way to investigate “Steve has illegal guns in his closet” without searching his closet, and prove that the statement was accurate…well, you can arrest Steve and then confiscate the weapons. No need for a search warrant, just an arrest one!

The police are not required to be perfect…merely, they are required to be responsible. If they were required to demonstrate perfection in all aspects of an investigation, you would never, ever be able to get a conviction.

Ben_Dover's avatar

@iamthemob By Javier Lavagnino on May 26, 2009 10:43 AM
“In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court today overturned its own previously established rule limiting police from initiating an interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has requested an attorney at an arraignment or similar proceeding.”

How do you go about assuming whether or not someone understands tha law? You said, “there was always the question of whether or not there should be a need to inform people of their rights when there was an assumption that people were not ignorant of the laws.”
Do you have something against the police informing alleged perpetrators of their rights?
So now you aren’t reading what I said earlier about the 4th amendment in re your allegation, ”
”So what if the information is false? The police have no time to investigate the veracity to ensure it’s true, often.”

The job of the police is to investigate and be sure info is not false. Where do you live? Russia? Police are using the new relaxing of the 4th amendment to perform what would otherwise be illegal searches, using the evidence found in such searches in a court of law…_When three years ago evidence found in such a heinous manner would have been excluded by any competent trial judge.

The poice are require to be perfect. Otherwise the case will get thrown out (dismissed)...Well, that was rue in the old days. Now the police have more leeway to make illegal searches based on faulty information, and have the fruits of their unlawful investigation admissible in a court of law.

Just becaus an informant snitches a peron out does not mean that information is true. Yes, the police are obligated to be sure the info is true before a search based on such info can be made (at least that was true 5 years ago, maybe 10)...but no more…now the search may be conducted on the faulty word of a snitch and then the evidence obtained thereby can be admissible regardless of the truth of the original informant.
This was not so before the changes to the constitution were made by the US Supreme Court.

iamthemob's avatar


“Ignorance of the law is not an excuse” is an old school axiom.

But no, I have nothing against police informing people of their rights. I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily accurate to say that we’re losing rights when the right has only been in the works for 50 years or so.

They have no duty, for instance, to tell someone that they can refuse a request to search their home, or their car, etc.

I don’t understand how you are coming to the conclusion that the police must be perfect. Police often arrest the wrong individual. People who are arrested are not convicted. However, during the entire process, in either case, the arrest doesn’t hold, or the person is not convicted, not because search warrants were invalidated. There is no, and never has been, a standard of absolute certainty to obtain a search warrant. Therefore, perfection and certainty of the truth of the evidence underlying the warrant is not necessary.

Constitutionally, warrants are issued on probable cause. That has never been equated with certainty.

Please tell me if you have found some information that this has been interpreted any other way. Otherwise, I would ask you to research the issue before you make wild accusations about the nature of the law based on nothing in history, and nothing in the Constitution. ;-)

I would ask as well if you are going to make assertions as you do as to how my statements are false that you back it up with some form of documentation. Unless you have some sort of provable and unassailable expertise in this area, I would say this is a common courtesy if you are going to be consistently confrontational in your arguments.

All kidding aside…seriously though, accusations that I think we live in Russia are not helpful. They’re just personal attacks. And they seem to be a little prejudiced as well, don’t they?

Ben_Dover's avatar


I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily accurate to say that we’re losing rights when the right has only been in the works for 50 years or so.”

If we only just secured these rights 50 years ago, and they are already vanishing due to Supreme Court rulings, then I would say yes, we are losing those rights.

It doesn’t matter when the right was acquired, when you lose it .. it is gone.

iamthemob's avatar

We also lost the right to have children work. The law develops, and we understand it new every time it does.

However, we have not lost the right to an attorney at any point, or the right to be silent, have we? The failure to mirandize at various points would end up allowing confessions to be thrown out. Saying that if there is no miranda in certain situations then there’s no need to throw out the evidence is not saying they lose the right to be silent during those times. It goes to admissability. (sorry to use the term right before – the right would then be the right of someone who confesses after the police interrogated without miranda in these situations to have that confession thrown out).

People generally now are also well aware of their rights to an attorney and to be silent, in many ways due to police and crime drama. Very different scenario than when Miranda v. Arizona took place.

And the scope of Miranda has always been examined in case after case (lord, I had to read case after case in law school for sure). Again, I’m tired so I was discussing Miranda “rights” earlier. The problem with Miranda much of the time is that it necessitates tossing out good evidence because of faulty procedure. So the courts have attempted to make sure that it’s scope is the most appropriate. And that changes as new situations and circumstances arise.

I’m not advocating for new borders for the scope. I’m saying, however, that claiming that our rights are being necessarily whittled away can be viewed, in this case, more as a refinement of the procedure involving evidentiary admissions.

More than one good case has been tossed out because of a Miranda slip up, I assure you.

Ben_Dover's avatar

Hahahaha….The right to have children work. Hahahaha
So you support child labor!!!!

Miranda is 5th amendment. tossing evidence from illegal searches is 4th amendment. the two are separate amendments.

“People generally now are also well aware of their rights to an attorney and to be silent, in many ways due to police and crime drama. Very different scenario than when Miranda v. Arizona took place.”

Now it is you who are assuming facts not in evidence and making things up as you go.

If the police cannot follow a simple procedure, then the evidence should be tossed.

Better more than one good case be dismissed for improperly following procedures, than one innocent person be locked away unjustly. This is, after all, what all these rights are about.

And this is something people have been fighting and dying over for hundreds, nay, thousands of years.

From the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights. And here you are suggesting, oh well, it’s no big deal.

It is a big deal. it is an incredibly big deal. It could take a hundred years to regain some of these rights which are being whittled away by politically motivated justices.

Hundreds of years and who knows how many will have to suffer unjustly while the right people come long to fight for and regain these rights which were whittled away.

iamthemob's avatar


Why would you jump to the conclusion that I support child labor? We lose a lot of “rights” along the way…and some of the time they are things we should never have been doing in the first place. Don’t assume personal support every time I state a fact.

However, now that you raise the issue of “right” and “wrong” the issue gets complicated in developing nations. Many child labor involves family agricultural production, which was a staple in the U.S. economic development – children were born and considered to be valuable because they added to the family’s ability to produce. Agro-based economies can see significant rises in poverty levels if child labor is eliminated without a system in place to modernize the market there, and can lead to families selling the children into various forms of slavery.

Miranda is NOT the fifth amendment. Miranda is NOT the fourth amendment. You’re right that it is related to your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, but I don’t think that I commented on Miranda in context of the fourth anywhere above…the fourth amendment discussion was about various other issues.

If you mean that my tossing evidence discussion associated the Miranda rights with searches…practically it does. The police will sometimes conduct searches that result from information received in an interrogation that was later determined to be violative of someone’s Miranda…after which the evidence may be tossed.

And Miranda has become embedded in American culture such that people can cite their right to attorneys and silence at a basic level. This was not so prior to the decision.

Simple procedure is not so simple though – the first Miranda reading covers a person’s right for a certain amount of times. Sometimes, they have to re-mirandize after a certain period of time. The length of detention matters. Plus there is always an issue of whether a reasonable person would consider themselves under arrest – or whether the individual does. It may be unclear at times when Miranda is needed.

I agree that if Miranda is clearly violated, in the interest of general justice anything obtained from it is tossed. But that doesn’t mean that protection of Miranda rights results in a just conclusion in each instance.

I’m suggesting not that it’s no big deal. I’m saying know exactly what you’re concerned about from the decision, what specific right you are concerned about losing, and what the decision means for you as a citizen.

So, specifically in this situation, what right has been eliminated, and how does that affect you? What bad results are you concerned about (besides slippery slope issues)?

“Activist judges” is a dangerous term as well. Many decisions that people claim are politically motivated can be traced to sound legal conclusions. There are few which seem to be snatched out of constitutional thin air – the Constitutional right of privacy that was the basis of the “Roe v. Wade” decision was one of these many argue…this right is implied and was read into the Constitution by the Court. I support having this right, but it was a rare act of judicial activism.

So, what will this do…and please, be specific.

Trillian's avatar

Those bastards can force me to send my kids to school. Force me to pay taxes and enjoy utilize police and fire protection. They force me to drive my car on paved public roads and force me to hook up my plumbing to a minicipal water supply. They take care of my fellow citizens who are unable to work and they subsidize housing for those who are ill equipped to house theselves. They force allow me to be part of a democratic process of govrnment and if I don’t like it, my voice is allowed to be heard in civic dissent.
They force me to have a say in laws and regulations that effect public safety like drinking ages and weapons availability. I also am forced have the option to participate in the election process whereby I have a say in my representation. I even have the optiion of joining and giving support to special interest groups who have nothing else to do but try to change laws to reflect my way of thinking.
Those fucking bastards, where will it all end?

iamthemob's avatar


No they can’t force you to send your kids to school. Children are home schooled as well. Society requires children be educated, there is no requirement from the government as to the method.

But quite amusing, overall! :-)

Trillian's avatar

@iamthemob The government requires that children be educated. You don’t need to pounce on the word “send”. I purposely didn’t say public school, though it is of course available. Maybe I could have worded that more carefully, and yes, thank you. I was having some fun with that. I’m glad you could tell. I was bracing for a backlash/storm of retribution seldom seen since the last hurricane I lived through.

iamthemob's avatar


Lord, no pouncing – I would hope that people point out what are potentially my assumptions as well. ;-)

Also, I still don’t think that it’s government detached from my society. Home schooling is not necessarily a formal education…I think that if we had no government, children would inevitably be educated in a manner that provided their success in society. But I don’t really know what this means when one states that government requires education – I’d be interested if you have anything outlining how that plays out, because I don’t know if I ever really thought about that…

Trillian's avatar

@iamthemob I homeschooled my oldest daughter one year while I was in Guam. I had state guidelines to meet and she had to pass tests in accordance with whatever the criteria was for her grade. That is, she had to be educated on a level with her peers in public schools.
You missed the subtle wordplay with “pounce”. Cats pounce….never mind.
And no, I believe that if there were no government regulations mandating education levels, far too many kids would not get all teh tools they need to live fulfilling, prodictive lives in our society.
I feel qualified to say that just based on my limited exposure to a group of church members who are feeding a bunch of kids in my community who are not getting their basic needs fulfilled by their parents because the parents are in the penal system and users of/addicted to oxycontin. You would not believe how little the parents concern themselves about these kids. They already don’t properly feed or clothe them. Can you imagine how little academics mean to them? The only concern for these people, is getting their next pill.

iamthemob's avatar

AH! I didn’t pay attention to the wordplay because I have the default avatar. I don’t really know that it’s there even. But kudos, then…:-)

Hm, I don’t know that with the regulations or guidelines they are getting the tools anyway…but you can’t say that education just wouldn’t happen if they weren’t there, can you?

Your example is troubling, but I think it’s more evidence to show how society would step in regardless of the structure – whether or not it is the most effective method. The church here is taking place of the parents. The government has no direct involvement in taking care of the kids. And, were the church not there, then there’s nothing to say that the government practically would step in (what if the kids just fell off the radar?).

I think that, on average, kids would be educated if there were no government. The objective proof of this is the fact that public education is a relatively new phenomenon in human history, and children were educated nonetheless. Whether there is greater democracy available in a government-mandated system as in any other (e.g., all are given the tools to allow them to do various things rather than a built-in class fall back where the poor are educated to do work only associated with the poor, etc.) I don’t pretend to have a strong assertion about.

Trillian's avatar

@iamthemob Hmmm. I don’t have enough evidence to argue the point. Nor do I really want the case I’ stating to be the truth in particular. I just know that because of government requirements, it makes it easier for us to talk parents into allowiing us to help with meals, doctor trips, clothing etc.
My personal ambitions for this project are bigger than we are at present. That’s all I’m going to say about it for now.
Ican tell you that your assertion that “children were educated nonetheless” certainly does not cover all children at any one period, and this is what we’re trying to cover. Some children get educated, many are raised in ignornce and poverty. So many are not educated, see my post in @Jleslie’s Q about abortion vs paying to raise children. It really is a lot to go into…

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther