An excellent analogy …

Can’t offer better advice than “read it all”.

If I were to say to you, “A well-educated population, being necessary to the productivity of a free state, the right of the people to read and write, shall not be infringed,” would you take that to mean that people can only read and write if doing so is in service of the state? Or only because the State desires a well-educated population?

Would you conclude from this statement that the right of the people to read and write is a collective right, not an individual right?

Would you accept restrictions on your ability to read and write because doing so does not serve the State?

Would you insist that only government employees be allowed to read and write?

Source: Oleg Volk

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 years ago

Ah, dear Hans, surely you see the irony here. Because these are -exactly- the reasons why 19th and early-20th century [p]rogressives made education 1)public, and then 2)compulsory.
Better factory workers --
A populace more readily propagandized.
The refining of individualism, which could then be used to fracture and then [ahem] “reform” our communities, states, and our nation.

Where, indeed, would our country be without “free education” to empower our “free press”?

Now, of course, the legitimate utility of “education” is at last extinguished, because TV, movies, and video games propagandize the masses so much more effectively; leaving “primary education” as nothing more than a state-mandated child rearing program, and the university system as an asylum for the propagation of suicidal lunacy.