Two Ohio legislators are proposing a law that would ban corporal punishment in public schools. Ignore all the issues revolving around the evils of public education and the practice of corporal punishment, instead let's focus on who is proposing the law v. who must obey it.
In Ohio during the 1990's, public school districts had to either hold public debates in order to continue using corporal punishment or pass policies banning it. Almost every district chose to ban corporal punishment, with the exception of a dozen or so Southestern Ohio districts.
The two Ohio legislators who are proposing the law change are NOT from counties that have public school districts practicing corporal punishment. So, these legislator are not representing the property issues of their residents. They are simply representing those who want to be do-gooders.
Is this a correct form of democracy, where outsiders get to control the actions of local citizens?
Question: How does a libertarian protect himself while jogging?
A house on my path has Doberman pincers behind an invisible fence. These dogs race directly at any runner or walker but stop just short of the sidewalk due to the invisible fence. So, the jogger or walker must trust that the fence is on, the dog collars on, and that the dogs will not race through the electric field.
What rights does the jogger or walker possess in a libertarian prospective? Does the libertarian jogger or walker have the right to use pepper spray as a defense even though the dogs remain on private property? Or, must the jogger wait for the bite before taking action? (note: this is a small-scale application of defense against perceived threats)