http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

The Union Town Area School District in Pennsylvania is considering the use of tasers in the school district.

Homer [director of security] said the school has tried to be pro-active over the years in terms of security, and his job is to look within and outside of the school to stay ahead of trends in society, citing there was no school security 20 years ago but the ways of the world have made it commonplace.”We have to think of the future,” Homer said, adding that there had been recent incidents outside of the school where police would need Tasers, and it’s possible that similar incidents could make it into the schools.

One has to wonder about the possible reasons for an increase in violence, almost always in government schools. Could it be the terrible war on drugs and other victimless crimes? Could it be a culture of welfare and entitlements? Could it be wage and business regulations? What about inflation? All these things have contributed to breaking up the family unit, or to making the family poorer.

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate and total documented prison population in the world. Ending the war on drugs and the welfare state would go surely reduce violence in the classroom by returning upbringing rights where they belong: to the parent; putting kids into the institutional environment will undoubtedly drive some of them crazy. And abolishing state schools citizen factories would allow parents to decide how best to educate their children. As usual, the government “solution” (Taser) to a government-created problem (government schooling), ends up being worse than the original “problem,” as determined by politicians (lack of sufficient education in society).

So will TPS (tases per student) be a new stat parents look at when choosing a school?

I think this is another ‘treating the symptom instead of the problem’ scenario.

http://www.examiner.com/…

Six parents of chronically truant San Francisco schoolchildren - each of whom missed more than 50 days of class - were arraigned Tuesday before a superior court judge on infractions that charged the guardians with failing to make sure their kids receive an education.

The infractions, pursued by District Attorney Kamala Harris, carry a $100 fine. If the truancy continues, the next step would be misdemeanor charges of neglecting a child’s education, charges that could land a parent in county jail for up to a year with a fine up to $2,500, Harris said Tuesday.

The parents - Connie Wilson, Jamelia Kellom, Shanae Seastrunk, Kenneth Reed, Chanell Brown and Joshua Pomar - were the first to be prosecuted under stricter enforcement guidelines announced by Harris at the beginning of the school year.

The number of students skipping school in San Francisco has long been above statewide averages and costs the already cash-strapped district more than $5 million in state funding every year. One absence costs the San Francisco Unified School District about $42, according to district data.

Among the most common reasons for truancies, especially among elementary school children, are child care issues, drug abuse by parents, lack of transportation, family abandonment and the students ditching classes, according to school district Superintendant Carlos Garcia.

“You know, little kids, what rights do they have? I think we as a society need to stand up for their rights, the right to an education,” Garcia said.

1. Education is not a right. You don’t have a right to other people’s labor. Your existence doesn’t create an obligation for others to provide you with anything. Taxation is theft, period. 2. The absence wouldn’t cost anyone anything if there wasn’t compulsory government schooling. This whole “your actions cost us all” “problem” only exists because these power hungry, megalomaniacs who think they know better than everyone one else use guns to force people into participating in things they could be doing voluntarily. If the service was so important as these people like to claim why then wouldn’t the free market be able to provide it? If you look at it historically it could… what has changed? Could it be that religious and socialist idealists wanted to control the populous? Could it be that compulsory education was instituted not for the children but those in power who wish to propagandize their utopian values?