There are some stories that make me yell out in frustration. Frustration at the lack of respect for the nature of a child. Frustration at growing militarization and criminalization of behavior. Frustration at the abuse of children and adolescents by the society who is supposed to protect them.

My own, [...]]]>

There are some stories that make me yell out in frustration. Frustration at the lack of respect for the nature of a child. Frustration at growing militarization and criminalization of behavior. Frustration at the abuse of children and adolescents by the society who is supposed to protect them.

My own, very direct, work with adolescents makes the recent Guardian UK story, “The US schools with their own police” that much more frustrating. The subtitle tells you the angle of the story, “More and more US schools have police patrolling the corridors. Pupils are being arrested for throwing paper planes and failing to pick up crumbs from the canteen floor. Why is the state criminalising normal childhood behaviour?” and it is very well done. My question is: How did it become socially acceptable for an adult cause a uniformed and armed police man to arrest and charge a young child with disorderly conduct.

“several districts ticketed a six-year-old at least once in the last five years”.

I have so many questions about the violation of children’s rights in these cases… legal friends? rights/ethics/philosophy friends? help?

• A child is, by law, not allowed to earn wages. By fining them with a monetary charge, you are requiring them to procure funds that are illegal for them to trade for. Did I miss something?
• Compulsory education laws in Texas require attendance until the age of 16, the law requires these children to be in these environment, or risk legal charges brought against them. The parents and children have no recourse for the charges. They are not part of the conversation that determines what the punishable offenses are, nor are they authorized to petition once the charges have been made. Isn’t this lack of representation a problem? The school board is an elected body (mostly), but they do not make the rules for offenses in the schools, I believe those are decided upon by the principles and superintendents, who are appointed, not elected. Legal friends, can you help me understand this?

I have written about the tragedy of zero-tolerance before and I encourage you to read this Guardian article in its entirety. Then ask yourself:

What are we teaching these children? What norms are we acculturating them to? What society are we preparing them for?

P.S. Here is an response to the article discussing the possible profit motive for these actions. It is useful to ask what the incentives for these kinds of decisions might be.

Texas Schools Have Police Arresting Kids-The Young Turks

A Women’s Liberty Reader Essay Selections

Women’s Rights

I know we haven’t posted in a while, our apologies. We are considering a relaunch of the site and we appreciate your patience. We hope the new site will have social media aspects that allow for this conversation to continue in a more fluid way.

We are currently looking for co-writers on this [...]]]> Dear Readers,

I know we haven’t posted in a while, our apologies. We are considering a relaunch of the site and we appreciate your patience. We hope the new site will have social media aspects that allow for this conversation to continue in a more fluid way.

We are currently looking for co-writers on this blog as we look to re-launch! Please let us know if you are interested, what your interest in the subject of education and liberty is and your qualifications.

We will be posting more regularly in the upcoming months and will give you word of our new re-launch as soon as we have more information.

Thank you for your patience.

Warmest regards,

Rachel Davison & Andrew Humphries.

It is terrifying that so many are unconcerned about arrests without Habeas Corpus, military prisons, and torture. These activities don’t bring anyone more security.  In fact, they bring about a false sense of security while simultaneously making life more systematically dangerous for all.

Arrest without [...]]]> A lot is being said about torture recently—but not enough. 

It is terrifying that so many are unconcerned about arrests without Habeas Corpus, military prisons, and torture. These activities don’t bring anyone more security.  In fact, they bring about a false sense of security while simultaneously making life more systematically dangerous for all.

Arrest without Habeas Corpus is arrest without charge, without reasonable evidence for being detained, without having a definite, reasonable time set for a trial, without being able to confront the witnesses and evidence held against you, and without the principle that we should be treated as innocent until we are proven guilty.  Without the principle of Habeas Corpus, innocent people can be detained indefinitely.  Anyone can be locked away forever, for any reason without anyone else ever knowing about it.  Should this give us comfort?

Men are not angels.  They are neither unconditionally kind nor omniscient.  When we are treated as guilty before we are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we are all at risk from the suspicion, paranoia, prejudice or even malice of those in control of the coercive apparatus of government.    

The purpose of legal procedure is to protect the innocent from omnipotent government and to discover, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, what the truth of the matter is at hand.

In the modern world, military personnel are purposefully trained to have no sympathetic sentiments for the “enemy” and to follow the orders of authority uncritically. In military prisons, where there aren’t strict procedures to determine guilt or innocence, and where everyone is presumed guilty, what mercy is there for anyone?  Human beings are objectified.  People are no longer seen as individuals but as objects, part of a collective—“the enemy”.  You don’t have to treat objects like people.

It is not surprising what has happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo Bay. 

Torture is complete nonsense.  Torture is defended as a way of obtaining information to make us safe.  But the information gained from torture is worse than unreliable.  People will say what they need to say to stop the pain and fear of torture.  I say that information gained from torture is worse than unreliable because, not only is the information gained suspect, but leading questions of interrogators either through prejudice (pre-judgment), or malice will determine the content of the responses of the victims.  Torture does not tend to reveal truth, it tends to confirm the preconceptions of interrogators, interrogators who already think they know you’re guilty.   

Imagine if police officers could compel testimony from suspects.  We call them suspects because they are not yet convicts!  Police suspect many more people than actually commit crimes.  Sometimes they probably have strong hunches about who is guilty.  But if they weren’t constrained by tough rules of gathering evidence and making a case against someone to an impartial judge, they would stop at their hunches.  They could compel those they suspected of crimes to plead guilty to avoid pain. 

This reasoning is embodied in our constitution in the protection in the 5^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United which states: “[no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”  The law could not be clearer than that. 

 We need to understand the principles of liberty and the principles of respectful communication in order to have security and in order for truth and justice to be served. 

This video of Jesse Ventura illustrates these ideas very well:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QR1S1bV3w0&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

When future historians look back, they will recognize that the 20th Century was the “Century of Hayek” in terms [...]]]> Today would have been the 110th birthday of F.A. Hayek.  He was one of the greatest minds of the past century.  This is what Steve Horwitz has to say over at The Austrian Economists

When future historians look back, they will recognize that the 20th Century was the “Century of Hayek” in terms of who generated ideas that both influenced the course of events in that century and set the agenda for understanding the social world for years to come.

Here are some links about him on the web:

Café Hayek relays a quote from Hayek’s Road to Serfdom about “The Totalitarians in Our Midst.”

Taking Hayek Seriously has a link to some biographical info on Hayek’s youth.

Mario Rizzo writes A Personal Appreciation over at Think Markets.

The goal of Education and Liberty is to explore the connections among Socratic inquiry, classical liberalism, Montessori pedagogy and Austrian economics.

We believe that there are two indispensable elements for unleashing the human potential.

The first element is the need to consistently practice the highest respect and love for all individuals [...]]]> About Education and Liberty

The goal of Education and Liberty is to explore the connections among Socratic inquiry, classical liberalism, Montessori pedagogy and Austrian economics.

We believe that there are two indispensable elements for unleashing the human potential.

The first element is the need to consistently practice the highest respect and love for all individuals at every level of social interaction: in personal relationships, in management, in the classroom, and in civil society at large.  This implies the need for peace, non-violence, tolerance, freedom of thought and expression, the respect of what properly belongs to others, and the freedom of voluntary association.

The second indispensable element is an unswerving dedication to the search for what is beautiful, good, and true.  This search requires perseverance, creativity, humility, empathy, honesty with self and others, willingness to question and be questioned, and the attempt to articulate and give reasons for what we think and believe.