How can a society deal with an individual who actively and openly hates that society?--except to exclude that individual from the benefits of that society that they hate.
It's only fair.
Just like your anarchy society--we have come up with general rules of behavior that are acceptable within that society. Openly hating that society and supporting its destruction is definitely not acceptable behavior in any society in the world.
Like are we better in a society that harbors those who hate and would destroy that society?
She hates this society, why should she share in its benefits, such as a free education?
1. Ignore them.
2. Refute their arguments, let the free marketplace of ideas be the judge of who is right.
--except to exclude that individual from the benefits of that society that they hate. It's only fair.
Sanctions merely for unpopular opinions is not only not 'fair', it is a fundamental injustice in free societies, and a brazen 1st Amendment violation.
Just like your anarchy society--we have come up with general rules of behavior that are acceptable within that society.
One of those rules is the 1st Amendment. Read it.
Openly hating that society and supporting its destruction is definitely not acceptable behavior in any society in the world.
Hmmmm. Hate Crimes, huh. I heard of those from some socialists that call themselves 'liberals'. I suppose it's all so very different if one hates something you like.
Like are we better in a society that harbors those who hate and would destroy that society?
Infinitely better off than a society that suppresses speech simply because it is offensive or unpopular.
She hates this society, why should she share in its benefits, such as a free education?
Because she is a citizen with an unalienable right to free speech. Exercising rights can never be cause for punishment. Punishment only comes after a crime has been committed and due process has been had.
I'm amazed that I have to explain this to anyone.
So any kid who hates school gets to not go to school? what sort of argument are you making? Anyone who disagrees with -- no "hates" -- a particular policy of schools is not permitted to attend school/have their kids attend school?
In a free society, we accept that there will be and try to deal with dissent -- thats kinda what the first ammendment is there for.
Its not like she's playing pat boone records so loud that other kids can't go to school. Now, if she convinces other kids to not go to school -- thats another story. Like are we better in a society that harbors those who hate and would destroy that society?
all i get from the article is she wants to wear sarcastic t-shirts, make a magazine with her friends, and possibly feed homeless people while delivering a political message (Thats the food not bombs reference in the article). How from this do you get that she wants to destroy the society? How is she impeding society from functioning, in any way other than by swaying the opinions of those who are participants of this society?
She hates this society, why should she share in its benefits, such as a free education?
I dunno, maybe cuz she and her mom pay taxes? And that one of the tenets of our society is that justice, and other things, are given independent of political opinion. or ought to be anyway. Isn't this a form of the Love it or leave it argument you're trying to use here?