Schools are voluntarily: Education is a function of Ethics not Morals - Part I

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 either. The State can only, at best, force the individual to sit in that chair. It cannot - yet anyway - force information into a person's brain and by such injection create knowledge. The State can only, through threat of force, demand that a child enter a building and sit in a chair. The act of learning must be done through a different form of social conditioning.

If in fact the State owns the authority to force individuals to complete actions then there is no limit to their use of force. The reason for this is because that once the individual gives up the right to make determinations under the threat of force, they lose for all time any opinion to make any decisions because they have no tool by which to stop the incursion of violence. This means, that for anyone that agrees that the State owns the authority to force an individual to perform any actions, will have zero authority to make any statements to the contrary. Emotionalism is not logic. Such people that get angry with the behavior of the officer are saying that they want the officer to enforce his power over individuals but at the same time they don't want him to have such authority. It is not possible to hold both opinions at the same time but by the act of living by bad metaphysics and holding a purely emotional view of reality.

What we are left with is one of two positions.

1. The State owns the authority and thus any violence that it deems is necessary to enforce that authority.
2. The State does not own that authority and does not possess the authority to use violence as a means to imply a pseudo authority.

If the state does not own that authority then its only power is persuasion by discourse, not violence. If the individual does not comply with the discussion then they are free to exit the situation and move on. For example, if I go to the grocery and want to procure some whiskey and open a discourse with the owner wherein he tells me the price of whiskey is ten times what it is at a different grocer I will end the transaction and leave. The grocer does not gain the authority to force me to purchase his product.  He cannot own that authority to begin with. This also means, that I do not gain the authority to throw a fit and start destroying his product or to stage a sit in until he gives into my demands. Neither of us gains the authority to influence the other by any violent means. Once that line is crossed, it only ends when one side can no longer escalate the level of violence and has to succumb to the acts of the other.

This would mean that those individuals that refuse to learn and or participate in the act of education offered as a function of the theft of taxation should be able to exit the situation and no longer participate. Now, I'm not going to get sidetracked by the nay-saying arguments such as: "They are too young to make such decisions" etc. Because those are emotes against some other human being and are by the act of suggesting a return to the idea that the State owns the authority. To say a child is too young to chose to not be schooled is the same as to say the child is not to young to be beat to death for not going to school. That is not hyperbole, that is the nature of the ownership of authority, read anything Stalin or Hitler did under the ownership of authority.

In the end then, if we plan to actually elevate mankind. To give him the tools to think and reason and evaluate the world he lives in, we have to give him the freedom to explore without the influence of authority. He needs to make these determinations on his own.