You've just given an opinion why a contract might not be valid, but that says nothing about the legality. I can work for someone without a contract. I can also agree to work for someone for non-monetary compensation.
Which the students did and in a court-of-law they proved the company failed to provide the required non-monetary compensation that had been promised.
Would that this was true! But you set a false scenario because you are assuming that without public education they wont get an education at all. This is false.
Can you prove that claim? I believe that if you remove the public schools, there will be many children who do not get a basic education. The pithier libertarians may claim this is already the case, but I'm reasonably sure the situation would be quite a bit worse. My reason is simple, and relates to the reason the public education system exists in the first place, the bottom 40% of the America public owns about 0.2% of it's wealth, which seems to work out to an average of around $1000 each. How much education is $1000 going to buy spread over 13 years?
Really? You fail to see the difference between a consensual relationship, and a non-consensual one? The difference is clearly in whether or not each individual has the choice of whether or not to enter and remain in the relationship. The consequences of that difference is that consensual relationships inevitably offer a net value to all parties (otherwise consent is not granted or is withdrawn) while non-consensual relationships do not necessarily offer that value, as one or more parties is captive. It seems quite clear, and hardly a trivial distinction.
Is it your contention that you are a captive of America and not free to leave? Or is merely that you think the rent is too high where you choose to live?
How do you imagine it would it be worse under libertarian rule?
Well, instead of bribing politicians for favours, the rich simply do what they please.
And? What is it you're afraid of? That they might spend money?
What are they currently bribing the government to do?
Not at all. Derived ultimately from the band societies that humans lived in for roughly a quarter of a million years *before* the beginnings of the city states.
I'm not an anthropologist, but I recently read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond (who is an anthropologist) and according to several comments made in his book, bands didn't tend to have much society. Everyone in the band tended to be related to everyone else. When two bands came into conflict the victors tended to drive the losers out of the area, or if that wasn't an option, murder them (except for those women who could be forced into marriage). Even when the bands met peacefully to trade, it would not be uncommon for someone seeking vengeance to murder or be murdered over some greivance real or imagined. The rise of what we would call society can be jointly attributed to the rise of religion and larger political organizations such as chiefdoms and states. Even in modern hunter-gatherer societies the pattern has been repeated, the primary cause of death tends to be murder until missionaries and governments work together to pacify and settle the hunter-gatherers.
You should be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking of pre-state societies as noble savages.
And in the system I advocate, you could say that, while in the system you defend, you cannot. Or you can, but it wont fly, of course. Find a way to refuse (difficult in europe, where the money is nearly always taxed before you get it) and you will eventually see why we say the power of the state grows out of the barrel of the gun.
I think the problem is that you have a world view conflict here:
Libertarians tend to view taxes as armed robbery.
Statists tend to view taxes as paying the bills of society.
Most libertarians wouldn't think taking a pair of shoes from a store without paying for it was just or reasonable, but when it comes to paying the bills for society, it suddenly becomes just and reasonable to take without paying. Most often this double-standard is explained by claiming that society's bills are unjust or immoral (sometimes they legitimately are). Libertarians may dismiss the bills as incurred by "parasites" who feed off of the "good" people. Most often, this is a failure to understand that the majority of people maintain a difference of opinion on what a legitimate expense for the state is.
Europeans, for example, seem to believe that making sure people don't starve is a fundamental duty of the state. This may seem insane to most libertarians, you're taking money from good people and giving it to people who can't even feed themselves. However, Europeans think they have good reasons to believe that is a legitimate expense. Consider for a moment that they have a longer history than America has, and it has been filled with more famines, wars and death than most Americans are even going to be aware of. For instance, France knows what happens when too many people are left to go hungry. I'm sure their neighbours have learned equally costly lessons. Thus is they believe that it is the duty of the state to maintain a stable society, and that a stable society is fundamental to having a prosperous society, then it clearly must be a duty of the state to feed the people (at least to some minimum extent).
On the otherhand, I do understand the Libertarian argument that you're taking the fruits of someone's labour to pay for society. But I fail to see how it's any different than paying any other shareholder his fair share of the profits. It is at least as legitimate to look at taxes as simply the cost of a prosperous society. The libertarian argument that it is forced through the barrel of gun fails for me, because the payment of any bill is ultimately enforced through the barrel of a gun. If you take things, like the before mentioned shoes, and refuse to pay for them, you will go to jail. Only the anarchists who dispute the very idea that property can be owned can use that argument and remain self-consistent.
How do you imagine it would it be worse under libertarian rule?
Well, instead of bribing politicians for favours, the rich simply do what they please. That's worse unless you're already rich enough to be your own unchecked god.
So, how are the rich going to get away with favouritism from gov't if they can't buy it?
A consequence of libertarian policies is that the rich no longer need goverment favouritism.
Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.