A message from Daniel Patrick to all members of Bureaucrash Social!

I am certain that many of you, like me, are concerned about the direction in which it seems that those at CEI have chosen to take Bureaucrash.  By now, you have probably read Lee Doren’s bio and comments thread and realize that he does not hold the principles of non-aggression, revolutionary economics, or free markets.  He has openly ridiculed Anarchism as being “utopian” and said that he will not promote anti-state positions.  He has been given many opportunities to clarify his exact positions to which he has replied with cryptic answers about being for a “small government” and a “Constitutional Republic”.  No doubt you have heard  similar statements from Republican politicians in recent months since Obama’s election.  We are all aware enough to know that this is pandering.

While I recognize and appreciate that CEI is free to hire whomever they wish, I am not subject to the plans of any man even if he has a fancy title like “Crasher-in-Chief” nor the plans of CEI.  So long as I am given access to this site and its resources I will use it to promote the ideas of free markets, peaceful revolution, and voluntaryism.

Some, including myself, have mentioned leaving Bureaucrash.  We recognize that CEI may do what they want with their site.  However, I believe that there is a more effective way and I’m not ready to jump ship just yet.  I would like to invite you all to help me in an effort to subvert the attempt to steer Bureaucrash in a right-wing, statist position.  I believe that the most effective way to do this is to ignore the CIC.  Ignore his requests for volunteers.  Ignore his blog posts.  Ignore his comments.  Pretend that he doesn’t exist.  Carry on using Bureaucrash in all the ways that you did in the interim when Pete Eyre left.

Also please join the group dedicated to nominating Xaq Fixx for CIC.  He is a principled liberty-lover and it will be a great show of support for the direction that we wish Bureaucrash to take.

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?