[pfannkuchen]

There is fairly well developed theory in this area, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here.

Americans do not have a “right” to education in the same way they have a “right” to e.g. free speech. The government can reduce or even eliminate state funded education without violating the constitution. If not enough e.g. teachers will work for the state (for the pay offered, based on tax revenue available, etc), the state can respond to changing circumstances by reducing or eliminating the education services provided. If education were to be added as a “right” then this reduction or elimination in service would not possible, unless you make that “right” so flimsy as to be basically meaningless (i.e. if the government is able to meaningfully remove it, it is not really a right).

I don’t believe in forced prison labor at all, so yes I’d be happy to sign that petition. I’m not sure what it has to do with this discussion.

[reaperman]

This didn’t convince me that federally funded right to healthcare would be forced labor any more than federally funded anything else.

[dragonwriter]

> Americans do not have a “right” to education in the same way they have a “right” to e.g. free speech.

OTOH, they do have a right to trial by jury, a right to counsel, and a right to vote in the sense that they have a right to free speech, and each of these rights require someone else’s labor.

[pfannkuchen]

Technically true, though not really a risk due to minuscule resources required to implement these. What percent of GDP do public defenders account for?

[viraptor]

You pretty much started the thread talking about something technically true. If you're discussing rights that should be so universal they don't get changed in extreme situation like not being able to provide a service without forced labour, then why does the GDP matter? GDP doesn't exist in the constitution.