Pumb-Line Libertarianism and Political Issues

I have often wondered at such cases as the 'bong hits 4 jesus' case where the supreme court decided that it was unprotected speech, what the libertarian position would be? Obviously, libertarians do not accept the public sector as legitimitate at first, but what happens when your forced to work within it? Such a question was brought up into my AP Government class and we of course had to pick two sides, either for or against the supreme court ruling. I was baffled due to the fact that 1) There is a right to free speech but, I considered 2) The property rights of the school. One could view point 2 as illegitimate as governments cannot have property rights in something, but it detracts from our original question regarding the student. Obviously allowing total freedom in the public school system would undermine its effectiveness, whatever that may be, but what position can you take as a libertarian and why? I do remember reading an article by Murray N. Rothbard entitled "Until Desocialization Comes," and his view was that current government functions should be setup as "business-like." However, what does he mean by "business-like" and how can that be applied to the current situation?

By business-like he means it should act as if it were the private owner of the property and make decisions in such a way that it maximizes its assets' value. A libertarian might take a contrary view, though, and say that it is better for the government to simply mismanage things and lead faster to its collapse. 

equack:

Such a question was brought up into my AP Government class and we of course had to pick two sides, either for or against the supreme court ruling. I was baffled due to the fact that 1) There is a right to free speech but, I considered 2) The property rights of the school. One could view point 2 as illegitimate as governments cannot have property rights in something, but it detracts from our original question regarding the student. Obviously allowing total freedom in the public school system would undermine its effectiveness, whatever that may be, but what position can you take as a libertarian and why?

 

I'm not a libertarian, but an anarchist, so don't take the following as official doctrine. As far as I'm concerned, the rights of the student should be paramount, and the question of whether or not upholding a student's human rights dimishes the school's effectiveness is irrelevant. It is bad enough that the school forces children and young adults to attend, but to tell them what they may and may not say strikes me as an addition of insult to injury.

Actually, I wrote an LRC article on this topic  - http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j11.html

 Here's a couple points to consider:

1-This case is a poor example of anything related to behavior in school, since it didn't happen in school.  Not punishing the student would set no precedent for school behavior, since the incident took place at a non-school function outside the school.

2-It is entirely clear that suspension is a punishment?  The real punishment, I submit, is mandatory attendance laws, which require students to show up and be incarcerated for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, despite the fact that no one accuses them of a crime.  Suspension functions more like a pardon, doesn't it?

3-Schools are not government property, they are unowned.  You cannot steal from a thief, and so making use of the school, so long as you do not victimize other people who have been forced to be there, is legitimate.  Making a ruckus does not victimize other people who are forced to be there by interfering with their education, it helps them by interfering with their brainwashing. 

4-Schools are serving a purpose, and allowing unrestricted free speech or non-coercive behavior in the school may indeed prevent that purpose from being served.  This is a good thing.  The purpose of the government schools is evil, and anything interfering with that purpose is good.