Rioting is the new marching

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?


We are the best.

Posted in Uncategorized
2 comments on “Rioting is the new marching
  1. 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.

    – Frank Van Dun, Human Dignity: Reason or Desire?

    Read the whole criticism here:

    The Libertarian definition of rights, which is the only correct one, makes the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights obsolete.

    In a place where your true rights are in place and protected, there is no need for a spurious “Right to Refuse to Kill” which groups such as Amnesty International and War Resisters International have advocated for.

    If your rights are protected, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the state to force you to join the army, since conscription (slavery) is a clear violation of your self ownership and property rights.

    Once you understand what rights really are, there is no going back, and this UN cods-wallop looks exactly like what it is, utter drivel and devious, dangerous nonsense.

    The Muslims, as usual, object to it:

    Islamic criticism
    Some Islamic countries have criticised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[20] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference[21] officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[22] an alternative document that says people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah”.[23]

    This is of course, entirely irrational. If the sharia is perfect, there is no need for any further expression or definition of rights amirite? Why have they even bothered to write their own declaration? All they have to do is declare their obedience to Sharia, and then they are DONE.

    Oh well…

    The Libertarian definition of rights allows everyone to live together in peace, with their own peculiar beliefs and practices. It prevents violence, does not allow for theft by the state, prevents slavery and all the other ills that plague the earth, like the UN.

    John Peters Humphrey was the author of the declaration; that man has no right to define what my rights are, or that others have rights to my property and labor through bogus ‘rights to education’ or anything else for that matter.

    How did he decide on his list of fundamental rights? Who vetted him or his list?

    The whole thing is completely absurd, and is destined to be discredited because politicians keep adding rights that result in economic distortion that is unsustainable.

    For the record, I am sick and tired of all the Britfags who keep calling themselves Libertarians but who think that war is OK, stealing is OK etc etc. These people ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS, they are perhaps anti-establishment, but they are NOT LIBERTARIANS.

    Libertarianism is not a mixed box of haut cuisine chocolates that you can pick and choose from. Like murder, you are either a MURDERER or you ARE NOT. You are either a SUPPORTER OF VIOLENT THEFT or you ARE NOT, etc etc.

    There are no two ways about this; you cannot do violence against people ether in person or by proxy and then claim that you are a Libertarian. You cannot be for the state in its current form, call for new laws, taxes, regulations or anything like that and then call yourself a Libertarian.

    There are very few Libertarians in the UK. Most of the ones that claim that they are, are statists who are fed up with things as they are.

    Its very important to say what things really are, otherwise, the root idea can become lost. Look at the word ‘Anarchy’ as an example. Today, that word means pig ignorant students smashing windows. If we do not correct these well meaning Libertarians who are not Libertarians, then the true meaning of that word is at risk of being lost… at least in the UK – the USA is another matter.

    Libertarianism is well understood, even by television pundits, thanks to Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano and all the other people who have dedicated their lives to these ideas.

    As Libertarianism grows, these pathetic, weak minded people will be forced to either capitulate and admit that they are not what they say they are, or they will have to accept the truth about rights.

    These students really are a sad crop; they are completely uneducated in economics and ethics, they have no imagination, no idea of history… in fact, these demonstrations and riots are closely related to the music they like.

    The music these young people listen to and make is a copy of music from the mid to late 20th century; rock and roll, ‘electronic’ music etc. The groups they like are a simulacrum, and the politics and methods they use are exactly the same, worthless imitations of the failed tactics people used from the 60’s to the 80’s.

    They really are USELESS!

  2. […] 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 […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: