Autonemesis

Over in this ridiculous thread, Loren Pechtel and several others are trying to make the case that teachers having kids share school supplies constitutes theft, that the parents and children are forced - FORCED, I tell you - to share school supplies with all the other kids. Loren even says the teacher should be thrown in jail for stealing school supplies.

I have to ask: what is the libertarian conception of force? I only see the dogged libertarians arguing that this situation is intolerable because parents are forced to allow their kids to share school supplies. But I don't get it. If the parents decline to send supplies with their kids, nothing adverse will happen. In fact, the kid still gets to share school supplies out of the communal pool of supplies. No fine is levied, no sanctions are placed on anyone, nothing at all happens if a parent declines to allow their kid to share.

Yet Loren and others claim that force is being used here. In what way? How is anyone being compelled to do anything against their wishes? What is the meaning of force, what is the meaning of voluntary, according to you libertarians, if these obviously voluntary school supply sharing programs are considered involuntary, or even theft?

I want to discover the principle for deciding when force is being used, so I can apply that principle into other situations and see if the libertarians still agree it is force. I bet it's easy to show that the uproar over the school supplies conspiracy is a bunch of knee-jerk hot air, that none of them has thought out well at all. So let's find out.

What is force?

Feather

It's not ridiculous. The teacher is asserting power over the students (showing force), requiring them to distribute supplies their parents bought to the rest of the class.

Force isn't simply actual violent action. It isn't simple coercion necessarily, either. But the act of distributing a child's supplies that were not paid for by taxpayer money to his peers against the wishes of his parents (or even his own wishes) is certainly something I would call "forceful."

I don't get it, either. If the parents send a note requesting their child be excused from reciting the Pledge of Allegience nothing adverse will happen. In fact, the kid still gets to share in the activities of the class that school was intended for in addition to this state mandated prayer.

enfant terrible

This is such an intelligent comparison that my cat could sue for defamation if someone credited it to him.

Feather

Thanks for the compliment. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain the rather transparent relation of the act of violating the Fourth Amendment rights to the act of violating the First Amendment rights to people on this forum, which I generally consider to be above average in intelligence and capability for rational thought.

Autonemesis

Thanks Feather, you convinced me. But it's funny that Loren and the others couldn't figure that out.

Feather

Is this sarcastic? I didn't read each post in the other thread in detail, but from what I did read I didn't get the impression that LP et al were saying anything different than what I stated above.

Autonemesis

No one drew a parallel to teacher-led recitation of the pledge. I found that analogy rather compelling. So I was forced to concede.

The others were just hand-waving hysterically about communist conspiracies. Even if my position in unreasonable or unfounded, I see no reason to budge just because the other guy is hysterical.

Spaz

Lol, maybe I'm just dumb but I still don't get it, and the pledge analogy didn't do anything for me. Can somebody explain it to me?

Feather

The Pledge contains a devotion to a God. Hence requiring students in a state funded classroom to recite the Pledge violates their First Amendment rights.

Confiscating school supplies without a warrant, writ, or other form of "due process" by an authority in a state funded facility is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Making the claim, "But you can opt out of sharing supplies" is equivalent to making the claim, "But you can opt out of reciting the Pledge." Neither claim is valid, because a person has the right to not have to choose prior to making the requirement in the first place. Rights are not "active" in the sense that failure to defend the right constitutes implied waiver of the right in all cases. At least according to the Consitution (or, rather, my interpretation of it).

Autonemesis

And I find myself unable to formulate a credible rebuttal to this argument. Good job.