Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is forced to be in school by State edict. That's one violation of the non-aggression principle. The workplace is different. That's a consensual agreement.
When faced with another possible violation of the non-aggression principle (being forced to physically move outside or physically move to an alternate location to possibly aid a State cause) he had 3 choices:
A. Join the protest and support the cause.
B. Cooperate with the protest's logistics thus making the protest easier on the actual protesters. This can be construed as support.
C. Refuse to cooperate as a counter-protest or to best to remain as neutral as possible in a s-hit show orchestrated by the school.
Not relevant. He's not an anarchist. None of the above should enter the equation here.
He wasn't home schooled he was attending a public school, and therefore, expectations of appropriate behavior according to those in charge are the points that matter in this scenario.
Formal education is required by State edit. Compulsory or first fines then the cage. Even if he is taught at home he still must abide by the State's guidelines.
There's no escaping the State...just reducing your footprint.
He is 18 years of age. He can drop out of school to avoid that red state edit (whatever the hell that is.).
Not relevant. He's not an anarchist. None of the above should enter the equation here.
He wasn't home schooled he was attending a public school, and therefore, expectations of appropriate behavior according to those in charge are the points that matter in this scenario.
I just pointed out that maybe he thought he would be arrested. Schooling is compulsory for ages x to y depending on locale. He was outside the compulsory age but still chose to attend school. When he didn't comply he should have been arrested.
The State, regardless of who is an isn't an anarchist, needs to apply its laws/regulations equally. By merely suspending him they regarding him as a only a disruption to the protest and not a violator of the State's edicts.
He is 18 years of age. He can drop out of school to avoid that red state edit (whatever the hell that is.).
Should have read "edict" as in decree. I'm typing fast!
Again, now that I know he is 18 I think the school should have had him arrested for trespassing. By not doing so they clearly only thought of him as a disruption to the protest and not as a violator of the law.
It's very telling. I'm glad you pointed his age out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
