The Libertists

Recently a man was seen sitting with his very young son while a reporter was prodding the boy with a microphone.  The boy kept saying things like: "They want to kill us", "they will kill us", "they have guns" The father kept saying things like: "but we don't have to worry, because, look around, we have flowers. Look at all these flowers and candles." Obviously the argument the father was putting forward was that love somehow conquers all and even if the enemy of love outguns, outnumbers, and out maneuvers love, it will somehow survive...even if there is no one left on its side.  Of course, once the enemies of love defeat it, there is nothing left to defeat so most likely they would become the thing they hate... welcome to nature. I digress. As all of you know, I boil everything down to philosophy. If the argument the father is putting forward is Hegelian in nature and thus, follows upward politically to Engels view on social

I've been quiet on the incident where a student was beat in a classroom by an official officer of the State, because I needed to find a way to express the real issue here. To me it is not about the necessity of violence to get someone's child to comply. To me it is about the nature of individual freedom. The real question is: Does the State own the authority to force a child to be in that seat? Anyone that has read my book or posts here realize of course that no other person can morally or ethical take that responsibility from another person. It is a physical impossibility for one person to give another the authority to tell them what to do. The only method one person can use to gain this authority is by threat of violence and the willingness of the intended victim to comply. That said, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that the State does possess the authority to force people to do things, like say, get an education. Well, that's not exactly true eithe