Protect, perhaps. But, provide? Everything? Can you present a link to any government other than those of Cuba and North Korea making such a claim about itself, please?
Nobody said "everything" except you.
A few decades ago, this same argument, same talking points, were made in respect to making secondary school (high school) free for everyone.
At that time you could still get a good job without a high school diploma, though it was increasingly in demand.
Today you can still get a job without a postsecondary diploma/degree, but those qualifications are increasingly in demand and the jobs you get without them are not exactly careers you want to stick with.
I tried to help a young woman without a high school diploma get a job at a local burger stand. The manager just laughed and said "We have PhD students applying here." While that's a function of being in a university town, it's shocking nonetheless.
I think postsecondary education should be free too, since it is a requirement of most employers now.
It's already heavily subsidized, and not a huge step to full funding.
If we finally decided to extend full funding for secondary school for these students grandparents, it's now time to fully fund postsecondary education for this generation.
The money is there and it's our money and our decision how it should be allocated.
Why are employers recruiting skilled workers out-of-country when we're denying that training to our own kids? It makes absolutely no sense.
And the armchair pseudo-psychologists who think learning should be painful and punitive don't have the qualifications to make those judgements and often, to me, seem to be driven by some form of jealousy or resentment of youth.
Not a good justification for a major policy decision affecting the future growth of our economy and society, imo.
Do we deny youth health care because 'they have to learn to suffer'?
