You cannot be a libertarian and also think that its legitimate that rights can be taken away by the State. They cant. For the record, who is to decide what rights the state will hold immune from public referendum and what rights should not, and how are they going to decide? By referendum no doubt. Your thinking is faulty on this, clearly.

Due process is a total sham; ask Julian Assange or Nelson Mandela or anyone else to whom 'due process' has been done. Its just another State brainwashing term, pure and simple.

This is just a lie. You do not have to tax to protect rights; look at all the private security firms that exist without having to steal money from their clients.

This 'fruitcake' has a better and fuller understanding of Libertarianism than you do, and I dont have to ad hom to drive my points home.

I'm sorry that I am not being completely clear, please forgive me.

If we are to accept the notion of a State, then the only way it can be legitimate is if it is completely voluntary and non violent. That means that such a state can do anything, as long as they do not steal or coerce anyone.

That means they cannot raise an army through conscription (slavery). They cannot tax (theft). They cannot go to war (murder).

They can run a 'National Health Service' but they cannot steal money to run it. They can do anything as long as participation in it and contributions to it are voluntary, and the rights of other people are not violated. That means no Eminent domain for the 'public good', for example. It means no 'zoning' laws or 'planning permission'.

This is why Unions are such a good thing, and why laws controlling them are so evil. All men have the absolute right to associate with whomever they want. They can join together and refuse to work, or work together on mutually agreeable terms. These associations have nothing whatsoever to do with the State, and the State has no right to stop unions from striking. If the State can stop people from striking, they make workers into slaves.

An acceptable form of a state would take the shape of voluntary unions, where people can join and quit at will. Under the western democracies, you are born into slavery, as property of the State. The liberties you have are the gift of the state, and you are not even allowed to teach yourself unless they give you permission. You do not own your own land or house, and are forced to pay rent on it to the State ('Property Tax', 'Council Tax', 'Rates' etc)

A properly running State of Free Men could not automagically claim that you owe allegiance to them, or that 50% of your income belongs to the collective, or that your children must attend their schools and fight in their military or that you should pay 40% tax the house you inherited, or that you should pay an ongoing tax just because you own it.

In short, the State can do anything that you or I can do, but nothing that an individual cannot do.

Even the UN has condemned Germany for its stance on Home Schooling:

...the long-running problem in Germany drew the criticism of a United Nations special rapporteur's documents.

"Even though the special rapporteur is a strong advocate of public, free and compulsory education, it should be noted that education may not be reduced to mere school attendance and that educational processes should be strengthened to ensure that they always and primarily serve the best interest of the child," the report said.

"Distance-learning methods and homeschooling represent valid options which could be developed in certain circumstances, bearing in mind that parents have the right to choose the appropriate type of education for their children, as stipulated in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," the U.N. report said.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=146273

Just because the Germans had a bad episode and the German government is paranoid about a recurrence, this does not mean that the rights of Germans today should be suppressed.

Ironically, they are using a law enacted by the very regime they are trying to stop re-emerging to stop the re-emergence of that regime.

Its recursive!

This is a euphemism for brainwashing, pure and simple. Its immoral, indefensible and really bad.

You mean like 'Jay Walking' in Manhattan?

Or maybe you mean like this man being knocked off of his bicycle in that city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ

Thinking is hard!

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6n1FL42to8

or if you have the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

Actually, no:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan6.html

What you have in democracy is mob rule, where by simply voting, people's rights are suppressed only because a majority voted for something, no matter if it is fundamentally immoral or not. That is insane.

Health and education are not rights, they are goods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOwImRicZrw

You have a property right in yourself, i.e. you own yourself, your own life and body. Property rights have nothing to do with restricting the rights of others to resources.

There are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory.

Take, for example, the "human right" of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.

Every right is derived from property rights. Internet freedoms are all derived from property rights; your right to the boxen you build, your right to copy data on to your own property, your right to connect that box as a peer on the network where you agree to mutually beneficial rules. All of that comes from property rights, and when the State says you cannot post XYZ on your own server, they are not violating your 'right to the internet' or some other fanciful nonsense, they are violating your property rights that you have in your equipment.

Property rights, do not imply restricting the rights of others, they in fact explain and extend the same rights to everyone.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale).

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

The libertarian society of Ireland, which lasted for a thousand years — and which will be described further below — was able to resist English conquest for hundreds of years because of the absence of a State which could be conquered easily and then used by the conquerors to rule over the native population.

[...]

The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient Ireland — an Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.

For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice . . . . There was no trace of State-administered justice."

How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Often, two or more tuatha decided to merge into a single, more efficient unit. As Professor Peden states, "the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension."10 In short, they did not have the modern State with its claim to sovereignty over a given (usually expanding) territorial area, divorced from the landed property rights of its subjects; on the contrary, tuatha were voluntary associations [p. 232] which only comprised the landed properties of its voluntary members. Historically, about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

It lasted 1000 years.

The street you are walking down is privately owned, and the private police at either end make escape for you impossible. You are caught, I get my property back, then the street owner sends you to the private court, where you are severely punished.

Millions of people do it all the time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388279/British-tourist-faces-year-Dubai-jail-calling-prophet-Muhammad-terrorist-heated-row.html

On the private roads which I drive, there is no speed limit, just like the Autobahn in Germany. Speed limits dont make road use safer; yet another old wives take propagated by the State.

Thats what they taught you in school, so that you would not be able to think like a free man.

In Texas, you have better property rights than you do in other states; its called the Castle Doctrine:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=texas+man+shot+trespassing+drunk+taxi+jumped+out#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=castle%20doctrine%20texas&aq=1l&aqi=g-l5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ea006a1cc738a9bb&biw=1268&bih=740&pf=p&pdl=300

You have no right to encroach on other people's property without permission. Period. the only rights you have are to your own property, which includes your own body.

Legal yes, but moral no. Would I give shelter to people who are suffering? Yes. Do others have a right to shelter on other people's land? No.

You do not understand what the difference between rights and laws is. You do not know what rights are or where they come from.

You have to understand this before you can discuss it properly.

It seems that you dont understand what Home Education Home or Schooling actually means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling

Its illegal in Germany. Thats immoral. Deal with it.

More to the point, and what is crucial, is what a State should not be able to do.

A State should not be able to do anything that you or I am not able to do, like stop people from kissing in public, or growing and smoking Marijuana, or brewing alcohol, or selling those things, or selling yourself, or gambling, or anything whatsoever as long as you do not violate the property rights of other people.

That means no Eminent domain, no internet regulations (censorship, net neutrality), no compulsory school attendance laws, no prohibition, no outlawing of prostitution, no theft (taxation), no enslaving other people (Obamacare, conscription, draft), murder (war) and all the myriad other bad things that the State does.

Prove it to yourself:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Being forced to send your child to a school is Child Slavery, do you approve of it? Do you believe that because a majority thinks it is appropriate, that confers legitimacy upon it?

Then you grasp the fundamental problem. SOMEONE has to be responsible for children. What you have to decide is who you think should be responsible, the State or parents, and then you have to say why.

If you say the State, then you have to explain why such a violent idea is morally correct.

You do not know what rights are or where they come from. If you did, you could not say, for example, that not sending your child to school is removing rights from children, or that children have a 'right to education at school'.

Children do not have rights that are separate and distinct from the rights that all men have. The UN is responsible for creating this fallacious idea of 'Children's Rights' which is nothing more than a means of getting access to children so that they can be controlled in law.

The state is not "empowered by the people" this is brainwashing and rote repetition of the programming people get in Schools. Rights are not conferred or created by consensus, the UN, legislature or anything else.

If all morality is subjective, then you cannot claim that it is wrong for people to do harm to one another, since it is only the perspective of the individual that is the basis of morality, This is pure autism, "Only I am real, only what I know is true. Other people are not real, they feel nothing; only my feelings are real" etc.

Whose stilts, yours or mine or the State's?