Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a thought... It seems as though the converse of the argument that all the PhD at these universities are indoctrinatin' liberals would be that: The more educated one becomes, the more progressive one becomes.
Since the conservatives seem to be morphing in to the anti-intellectual party to appeal to angry people who feel they have somehow been snubbed by government, perhaps its necessary to attempt to position "college" as a bastion of the liberal elite, instead of a place where everyone could better themselves.
Since we seem to be fond of videos... Here's one of some well-informed Palin supporters being asked some pretty basic civics questions regarding their hero:
Easy, indoctrination is OK when you CHOOSE it. Not when it is forced on you or your children.
Isn't it pretty much always forced on kids? I've met quite a few people who went through some sort of strict religious upbringing and broke with it as adults, and they've never made it sound like they had much of a choice -- or at least, never made it sound like they were ever given the information necessary to make an informed decision. Over and over again, phrases like "I had no idea that _____" pop up.
And how would a further deregulated market discourage even higher levels of corporate greed and out-and-out fraud and malfeasance we have seen countless examples of over the past few years.
Weakly regulated securities market left us with Madoff, et al.
Deregulated energy market left us with Enron.
I fail how to see further deregulation wont result in more of the same.
This is a typical Austrian perspective on deregulation/regulation of the market of which I agree with.
This may clear up your misunderstanding on the difference between free market (which has consequences to bad business decisions, therefore encouraging smart business) and deregulation (which is a symptom of the larger government intervention problem, and also encourages poor business choices).
We don't have a truly free market. Our government ultimately decides what is acceptable whether prevention through regulation, or acceptance through deregulation. It all paints a bigger problem as mentioned in that article.
This is a typical Austrian perspective on deregulation/regulation of the market of which I agree with.
This may clear up your misunderstanding on the difference between free market (which has consequences to bad business decisions, therefore encouraging smart business) and deregulation (which is a symptom of the larger government intervention problem, and also encourages poor business choices).
We don't have a truly free market. Our government ultimately decides what is acceptable whether prevention through regulation, or acceptance through deregulation. It all paints a bigger problem as mentioned in that article.
My impression is, however, that often decisions have consequences that are bad for others (maybe even the rest of us) but may be extremely rewarding for the decision maker.
So others suffer the consequences of bad business decisions while the decision makers are enriched-- This encourages continued bad decisions by unscrupulous business people who don't care about the consequences that others experience.
I haven't yet seen one of those non-government interventionist free market models speak to this...
My impression is, however, that often decisions have consequences that are bad for others (maybe even the rest of us) but may be extremely rewarding for the decision maker.
So others suffer the consequences of bad business decisions while the decision makers are enriched-- This encourages continued bad decisions by unscrupulous business people who don't care about the consequences that others experience.
I haven't yet seen one of those non-government interventionist free market models speak to this...
Well, I will say, we've never truly had a free market, not in my lifetime, at least.
A free market would allow the police force to enforce the law, as the author of the article mentioned.
The bad decisions were a result of deregulation by the government. What happened after? The keynes market failed, and we rewarded those very failures who supported and authored those policies. Larry Summers is now in the Obama admin. Timothy Geithner, who requested much of those deregs is now in charge of the Treasury!!
We don't have a free market, we have what I would call corporatism. This favors the big companies and esp. the bankers over everyone else and at the cost of everyone else, whether through bailouts and federal money printing (which is taxation through inflation).
My question to you is, if what we have doesn't work, what are your solutions? Obviously, we have a heavily regulated society, and that doesn't work, but if you take a look, the foundation of our market is faulty. The monetary system being what it is, has only lasted despite of itself, because where pockets of free market was allowed to exist, it thrived.
Easy, indoctrination is OK when you CHOOSE it. Not when it is forced on you or your children.
Bingo. Moreover, a good percentage of these universities are publicly funded.
It also goes beyond that in a very underlying way. It's not like you pull up to Wesleyan and there is a big sign that says "Progressive School" like you would expect at "Baptist Christ College"
My wife had many issues at CCSU with professors that targeted her because her opinion didn't "line up". There are countless examples of this. I don't have any mercy on someone who wanted to go to "Baptist U" and was like - they teach Christian stuff here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Here's a thought... It seems as though the converse of the argument that all the PhD at these universities are indoctrinatin' liberals would be that: The more educated one becomes, the more progressive one becomes.
Since the conservatives seem to be morphing in to the anti-intellectual party to appeal to angry people who feel they have somehow been snubbed by government, perhaps its necessary to attempt to position "college" as a bastion of the liberal elite, instead of a place where everyone could better themselves.
Yes, again your are correct. Anyone with conservative values, wishes to keep their children and women ignorant, barefoot and pregnant. We have blacks working our property too.
The plan is to abolish most universities as we know it and replace them with church halls where you are forced to burn your books, praise Jesus and handle a couple snakes...slapping your wife around is optional.
Since we are fond of finding random people on video to compare to Attorney Generals I think I'll let the ridiculousness of the comparison speak for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenband
Isn't it pretty much always forced on kids? I've met quite a few people who went through some sort of strict religious upbringing and broke with it as adults, and they've never made it sound like they had much of a choice -- or at least, never made it sound like they were ever given the information necessary to make an informed decision. Over and over again, phrases like "I had no idea that _____" pop up.
You are comparing a parenting issue with public education. Not the same.
If I as a parent wish to teach my kids certain things, it's none of your business...however, if I choose to send my child to UCONN and they are getting a one sided education and being forced to "comply" with certain ideologies and mindsets there is something wrong.
Well, I believe if we actually gave free market a chance,we'd see it would work. However, we live in a country that micromanages the economy, whether through regulations and deregulations.
Most of the keynesians laughed at him, but now they are the ones that look like the fools, while finally, the Austrian school is starting to get some serious consideration.
Hardly. We are a "free market" with just the right amount of regulation to make it a fair playing field. Indeed I think we are "freer" than most First World countries (Japan has far more trade restrictions and most of Europe is a legislative jungle compared to us). If you had a true 100% "free market" and I mean complete 100% free of any legislation so you don't think I'm some paranoid weirdo, you'd have too many people making 50c/hour for 80 hours per week and many of their kids doing it too. No, the entire country would not be that way, the free market would correct for some of that in the same way that it lets pro athletes earn $10 zillion/year, but you would still have a fairly high social cost that I think even most conservatives would not be willing to bear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Perhaps, but same for Bill Clinton if we are going to "go there".
Yea real stupid guy. When was the last time anyone here turned 800k into 15 million in 9 years through a legitimate investment?
What I see in Bush is family legacy no doubt...but I also see a man who made mistakes, pushed forward on his own and did things beyond rely on his "paper credentials". He ran REAL multi-million dollar companies that did well, and worked hard to turn a modest investment into something much larger. You don't do that because you are a stupid, rich spoiled brat. That would be someone like Paris Hilton.
Wasn't Bill Clinton "dirt poor" growing up? Where did he get "family help"?
As for Bush's businesses, I'm sure he wouldn't have had the "seed money" to get started without his family and wasn't his dad successfully in the oil business? Makes it a little easier to start and succeed at an oil company, don't you think. Don't get me wrong, I think he's light years ahead of Sarah Palin (and as I noted, I do think GW Bush would've gone to college, and not transfer 4 or 5 of them like she did). And it's possible that if he didn't have his family's influence that maybe he'd start and succeed at a business of some sort, but we'll never know.......and I still get the impression that Cheney mostly ran it behind the scenes. Back after the controversial 2000 election some where saying he'd take the results and be a "uniter" noting that he was fairly bi-partisan as TX governor, but instead of governing to a deeply divided electorate (perhaps in the manner that I imagine the "2000 McCain" would've) he mostly governed like he had the Reagan mandate of 1984.
And I honestly especially given the close results of 2000 do not think Gore would've governed as "far left" as Bush did "far right". Except for global warming, he actually was pretty centrist until after 2000 when he drifted as leftward as McCain did rightward. I remember the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in (1988) when Gore actually ran in the primaries as the (for a Democrat) "conservative" candidate.
I just don't think there is a "liberal elite" and my guess is that just like every other red herring of the far right Universities are much more centrist than accused. The "liberal elite" is a mythology purported by another group of elites, that's all. Wealthy people just like every population has a wide array for political spectrum, and frankly most "elites" tend to be more conservative because that generally is how most of them derive and maintain their status (and isn't all about status anyway?) relative to the larger group. One would tend not to want the boat rocked hard when on the steering wheel shouting orders.
I don't know your wife's particular experiences, but trust me that road goes both ways. Just like your caricature of how you believe liberals see conservatives, I've seen you rail against progressives in the same manner on these boards. Hey I do it too, but the group I tend to make sweeping generalisations about are the types of kids like those on that programme "Jersey Shore." It's fun and provides some outlet for our frustrations about the discrepancies of how we think the world should be and how it is, but it may not be useful when deciding policy points.
My underlying problem with modern day mainstream conservatives is that they only have a limited amount of solutions they seem to want to utilise: tax cuts more freedom to those that have freedom. They had a whole decade to make it work, and they blew it. If there was a concise conservative answer to balance the needs of the community and lower the overall cost, I'm sure they would make a hell of a comeback even here in Connecticut. I'm actually fairly conservative myself, I just don't trust any of the sly one-liners and promises that it'll all "just work out by the magic of the market." And frankly, I'm not so alone on that.
Blakesq,
Let me ask you this, what's the real difference between you indoctrinating your kids and if a state run school did? Isn't the end result the same?
7 Wishes,
You bring up a great point, our history is already fraught with examples on how the "free market" goes awry. Child Labour and general working people abuse are really awful things and without legal protection strong demand pool doesn't "just happen" like many of the Objectivists want to believe. The reason is simple, it doesn't matter how little you pay your workers if everyone pays so little no one can buy your product.
Metal,
For the Austrian school's idea of monetary marketplace (which is a huge centrepiece of the model), where multiple currencies are floated in the same economy based on the individuals faith in that particular system the end result is chaotic. Look at what happened right after the American Rebellion in which every state and every bank had their own currency interacting in what was thought to been a common market: it was too complex and too unpredictable that it became a key reason why the Second American Republic was born and the Acts of Confederation were thrust aside. Stability, predictability, and consistency seem to be crucial for decent economic activity.
~Yiasou
Last edited by Beeker2211; 01-07-2010 at 07:52 PM..
Bingo. Moreover, a good percentage of these universities are publicly funded.
It also goes beyond that in a very underlying way. It's not like you pull up to Wesleyan and there is a big sign that says "Progressive School" like you would expect at "Baptist Christ College".
No institution puts up a sign announcing their alleged political values, though it's usually not too terribly hard to figure out what the institutional culture is like. Does Notre Dame have a big "A Rather Conservative School" sign out front?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
You are comparing a parenting issue with public education. Not the same.
If I as a parent wish to teach my kids certain things, it's none of your business...however, if I choose to send my child to UCONN and they are getting a one sided education and being forced to "comply" with certain ideologies and mindsets there is something wrong.
So wait, then your comments about Wesleyan were completely irrelevant -- right? Because now you're talking about public education, by which I assume you mean publicly funded institutions like state schools, which are a totally different issue and have nothing whatsoever to do with privately funded universities.
It's also not the fault of progressives that a sizeable proportion of conservatives seek out religious schools. If conservatives take themselves out of the discussion, they're naturally not going to be represented, right?
You imply that CCSU professors went after your wife because she's Christian or conservative, but you don't mention exactly what the dispute was over or on which issues her opinion didn't "line up", which makes it hard to evaluate your claim. I know multiple CCSU professors who are practicing Christians, so frankly I'm a little dubious, but if she was unfairly targeted, that's a shame and she should take action.
It's certainly an issue that happens around the country, though, and there are legions of examples of progressive teachers getting fired from schools in conservative areas -- places where if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you won't be welcome for very long. Somehow I can't imagine many of City-Data's conservative posters speaking up on their behalf.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
