Prompted by school officials who apparently wanted a shorter and more quiet graduation ceremony, seven students were arrested for cheering for friends and family members at a high school graduation.

As I prowl the Internet, looking for a juicy pseudo-fascist nugget upon which to pounce, I am often struck by the sheer volume of unmitigated barking lunacy masquerading as "rule of law" imposed by some group of people under the pretext of "doing what's right" or whatever. Admittedly, as a market anarchist — a person convinced that the operation of the free market in combination with the basic truths of human action will result in a peaceful, just, affluent society — I'm very likely a little more, well, open-minded regarding what behavior should or should not be controlled. It's not that I am suggesting that we, as a society, just "let her rip" and hope for the best. It's just that I figure that the great Bob Higgs is correct when he opines, in his seminal treatise, "If Men Were Angels: The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-Government" that:

If a population acts to serve its common interest, it will never choose the state. In reaching this conclusion, we need not deny the countless problems that will plague the people living in a society without the state; any anarchical society, being peopled in normal proportion by vile and corruptible individuals, will have crimes and miseries aplenty. But everything that makes life without a state undesirable makes life with a state even more undesirable. The idea that the anti-social tendencies that afflict people in every society can be cured or even ameliorated by giving a few persons great discretionary power over all the others is, upon serious reflection, seen to be a wildly mistaken notion.  (Emphasis added.)

Maybe that's an esoteric point, worthy of debate only in the academic sphere. Still though, when I see stories like the one back in June where seven students were arrested for cheering at a high school graduation, I can't help but think that maybe, just maybe, the quest for control has gotten a liittle overblown. From the article we find:

When school officials in Rock Hill, South Carolina, tell graduation ceremony crowds to hold their applause until the end, they mean it — Police arrested seven people after they were accused of loud cheering during the ceremonies.

The article continues:

Six people at Fort Mill High School's graduation were charged Saturday and a seventh at the graduation for York Comprehensive High School was charged Friday with disorderly conduct, authorities said. Police said the seven yelled after students' names were called.

OK. So let's analyze this scenario using the most basic libertarian premises: private property and the non-aggression principle. The grounds of Fort Mill High School, while located at a public institution, can be thought of as "private property" for this analysis. In that case, the "owners" can set any standard they wish. For instance, one could set any rules he likes for his home, and instruct any person entering that home that if he breaks those rules, he must leave. In this regard, the actions of "the authorities" in Rock Hill are appropriate. If cheering is "outlawed" during a ceremony held on the "private property" controlled by those authorities, then certainly they can take steps to mitigate that behavior.

Nevertheless, just because one can take an action does not automatically make that action just, appropriate, or in fact, sensible. While I might be justified in asking a visitor to leave my home for infringing upon one of my household rules — wearing shoes in the kitchen for example — shooting him, or cutting off his foot would still be outside the realm of "reasonable and customary" behavior. One need not necessarily debate the location of this point, i.e., exactly what is reasonable and customary, since any stable society generally exists with a shared understanding of such constructs. (These "focal point[s] for each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do" were named for economist Thomas Schelling and are referred to as "Schelling points" in game theory.)

The basic point to be made here is this: Does anyone really think that hand-cuffing and jailing a person for cheering at graduation is a "reasonable and customary" punishment? What's next, canings for throwing your mortarboard? We must protect the sanctity of the ungraduated! Methinks the "gestapo" is getting a little frisky. Returning to the article we find:

Orr, 21, spent two hours in jail after he was arrested when he yelled for his cousin at York's commencement at the Winthrop University Coliseum. ... All the cases, except for one that includes a resisting arrest charge, will be handled in city court and are punishable by a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The actions taken by the authorities in this case have one purpose only: to make sure everyone knows who is in control. I reckon I enjoy a respectful graduation as much as the next guy, but something about seeing a student led away in hand-cuffs for clapping for a loved-one's accomplishment strikes me as just a bit over the top.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.