I'll be happy to hear anyone who wants to challenge this argument.
P1. Government schools in the US are compulsory institutions; participation in the system is not voluntary.
Everyone must pay applicable taxes to fund the school systems; there are no exceptions. Attendance by all children at the government school, or an alternative acceptable to the state, is compulsory. All must comply. Once having paid the taxes for the government school, any parent choosing a state-approved alternative must provide detailed receipts on demand by government agents.
P2. Failure to comply with the rules of the government school system results in punishment.
Truancy laws are serious business, especially in juvenile and divorce court. If you don't have first-hand experience, google it, or take my word for it.
P3. Many schools ban or restrict outside food not provided by the state.
All schools presumably have this power; the purpose is obviously to control the conduct of the inmates and to protect the state's monopoly on food revenue and behavior control.
https://www.timesnews.net/Education/201 ... lowed.html
https://www.offthegridnews.com/food/sch ... ts-served/Federal U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations and unwieldy deliveries are the two reasons for the ban, Hampton wrote.
“The first and most important reason is a noncompetition regulation from the USDA, which protects school cafeterias from the competition of outside establishments. Food services in our school system are completely self-supported through sales within our schools, and allowing outside items serves as direct competition for their business,” Hampton wrote. “The other reason for this expectation involves the difficulty of managing dropped off items. The size of our school makes it very challenging to manage the number of food and beverage deliveries we have had in recent weeks.”
http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3756047
https://education.findlaw.com/student-r ... -laws.html
Can Schools Ban Certain Lunches?
In a few highly publicized cases, parents and educators asked the question whether schools have the right to limit what students may bring to school to eat. On one hand, some argue that certain rules may interfere with their constitutional rights to raise their children according to their own values. On the other hand, some believe that states have an interest in keeping kids safe and healthy through publicly-funded lunch programs.
Below are just some of the cases making national news headlines:
In Chicago, a local school banned brownbag lunches from being served at all
A North Carolina student had her turkey sandwich taken away by a state inspector and was served cafeteria chicken nuggets in its place
National effort to ban ‘pink slime’ beef filler from USDA lunches
National Physicians Group petitioning to ban milk from school lunches
School districts across the country banning sugary drinks, like sodas and juices from menus
California and Massachusetts have considered banning chocolate and flavored milk because of its high sugar content
P4. Foster care is highly detrimental to children, parents, and all of society in ways that fines and collection efforts do not approach.
Foster care should be treated in every case as an option of last resort. Foster placement (and the threat of foster placement) causes irreparable and immediate harm. If you don't have first-hand knowledge of how disastrous foster placement is, google it up, or take my word for it. It's very very bad for all involved.
P5. The 8th Amendment provides: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
P6. The threat of state punishment is often the lever used by state agents to get what they want from citizens who refuse to voluntarily comply with rules regarding the state's theft and false imprisonment activities.
C: Government schools are run through the real and direct threat of unlawful and substantial violence against peaceful people and are immoral institutions.
