Rioting is the new marching

November 24th, 2010

So students think that breaking stuff will change something, will win them back a ‘free’ ticket to university?  Right there is the proof that these people are uneducated!

[T]hat’s another big problem, the people who can’t separate the authority and the people who have the authority vested in them. You see that a lot on the demonstrations, they have the concept that The Law and Law Enforcement are one. They’re demonstrating against the Police Department, actually against policemen. Lenny Bruce

Unfortunately, education is now considered a human right.

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit…. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among … racial or religious groups….”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26

[Snarfed from]

Not only is education a right, but “Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.”

Thus is another false market created. How can education be ‘free’, unless teachers work for nothing, all materials are provided gratis… and so on.  Someone is paying!  Are you educated enough to work out who?

2 Responses to “Rioting is the new marching”

  1. Tweets that mention BLOGDIAL Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by cyndeZu, Dark Politricks RT and Stichtag, Beautyon. Beautyon said: Violent socialist UK students: "Rioting is the new marching": #students #riots #austerity #socialism #libertarian […]

  2. irdial Says:

    All Libertarians understand that the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ is illegitimate on its face, but what is the history of this document? Go read its Wikipedia page:

    The best part is this:

    Some libertarians have criticised the Declaration for its inclusion of positive rights that they believe must be provided by others through forceful extraction (for example taxation) thereby negating others rights. Libertarian natural law theorist Frank Van Dun said of the document:

    The UD’s distinctive “rights” are incompatible with that doctrine [of natural rights]. Enforcement of one person’s economic, social, or cultural rights necessarily involves forcing others to relinquish their property, or to use it in a way prescribed by the enforcers. It would, therefore, constitute a clear violation of their natural right to manage and dispose of their lawful possessions without coercive or aggressive interference by others. It would also deny a person the right to improve his condition by accepting work for what he (but perhaps no one else) considers an adequate wage.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.