The Crime of Wrongfully Detaining People and Compulsory Education

[Boojatta]

Actually, the Original Post of this thread is about more than just compulsory education. It's also about the policy of providing, to only some special categories of people, special opportunities for post-secondary education.

Q re compulsory ed:
Should compulsory education be demanded of an individual based entirely on the person's age and educational credentials or might it be a good idea to permit testing for official determination of educational status regardless of the individual's age?

Q re special opportunities for post-secondary education:
Consider opportunities for post-secondary studies at government-subsidized schools by students who lack credentials normally required. Ordinarily, such opportunities seem to be based on the student's age and the results of official testing. Would it be a bad policy to provide such opportunities based on test results alone, with no demand that students be older than some specified, magic number of years old?

Q on the topic in the thread title:
Could any citizen or group of citizens not employed by the government and not given prior permission from the government, detain another citizen, and justify that detainment on the grounds that the detained citizen "needs to be educated and we are taking on the responsibility of providing that education"? For example, if the citizen or group of citizens could prove to a court that the detained citizen was fraudulently claiming to have some educational credentials that the detained citizen didn't have, then would the court acquit? What if the detained citizen asked to be tested and the accused had refused to permit testing to be done. Would the question of the authenticity of the detained citizen's educational credentials be the primary or only issue considered by the court?

[thunder rising]

1. WTF?? It's like the arguement of live birth abortions. Wedging

[Boojatta]

2. How do you know that your comparison with abortion arguments isn't a kind of wedging comparison?

Does the Original Post completely depend upon one specific and potentially invalid reasoning strategy? Is there so much disputed background information that you cannot even begin to answer any of the questions in the Original Post?