Why is there a Liberal Bias in higher Ed.

[Jim]

Jim - state the name of the political philosophy that the Soviet Union was founded upon. Think hard. I know that you can do it.

 

Consolidating the power you seized in revolution that was undertaken to implement a society founded upon Leftist ideals makes one a non-leftist? Lenin, Stalin, et al weren't communists? So, by this logic Cromwell and Robespierre were really royalists - ? And Castro has, by a similar logic, transmogrified into a Neocon?

 

This explains the violent antipathy towards Castro - that champion of human rights and political freedoms, that has always characterized the American Left.

 

This is where you generally loose your audience. You make some good points, and then try to over-reach. The usual tactic of trying to smear all progressives, or liberals, by associating them with the Soviets, or Marxists, or some other fringe group is straight out of 50s hysteria.

 

Again I would say that it's about as productive as trying to associate the neocons with the Nazis, which for the record is nonsense. Common sense folks realize the pathos of such comparisons. Your more provactive musings on social systems can be intriguing. These broadbrush smears are not.

[iain]

C'mon, you can't really be that closed-minded where anyone who wears something affiliated with pop iconography is autonamically an ideological supporter?

 

Yeah I saw this chick wearing an Abercrombie shirt with weathered numbers on the back, and she didn't even play for Abercrombie! She also had a friend wearing a "Rockstar" tshirt in glitter letters. She was anything but. Scandalous!

[olyclimber]

Ya, but were they good looking?

[j_b]

I would really like to meet (well maybe not ) these liberals that JayB continually brings up that are big fans of Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc...

 

 

well, for closet libertarians like JayB anyone to the left of milton freedman is a dangerous commie so don't be surprised by the manicheist rhetoric. the fig-leaf claim is freedom for the individual, yet in fact it's 'economism' which translates into everything being subject to the "law" of supply and demand, including that which has no intrinsic economic purpose.

[j_b]

if you feed enough of any substance to a rat it will develop cancer

 

"vom Saal was the first to reveal low-dose effects in mice exposed to BPA"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002239760_plastic13.html

 

[rbw1966]

A sure sign that a topic has neared the end of its discussion period is the appearance of the evil homonym.

[j_b]

awww ... do not be bitter rbw, it's not good for you.

[selkirk]

I would really like to meet (well maybe not

well, for closet libertarians like JayB anyone to the left of milton freedman is a dangerous commie so don't be surprised by the manicheist rhetoric. the fig-leaf claim is freedom for the individual, yet in fact it's 'economism' which translates into everything being subject to the "law" of supply and demand, including that which has no intrinsic economic purpose.

 

I've always wondered why some people believe that free market forces are completely sufficient to regulate things (society, business, etc.) The thought of major companies only being regulated by supply, demand, and the whims of the consumer is horrifying!

 

To even be mildly palatable it assumes that the vast majority of people are going to act in the long term best interests of their society when using their buying power, and that they recognize that the long term stability and prosperity of the society is in the final analysis more beneficial to them and their offspring, then a little immediate monetary savings. Either that or ir requires altruistic morally conscious companies

 

I don't know all that many people who think about the consequences of their purchases beyond the next paycheck/next fiscal cycle, much less 20, 30, or more years down the road. And most of the ones who do think about it do a half assed job, myself included.

[Peter_Puget]

[quote The thought of major companies only being regulated by supply, demand, and the whims of the consumer is horrifying!

 

To even be mildly palatable it assumes that the vast majority of people are going to act in the long term best interests of their society when using their buying power, and that they recognize that the long term stability and prosperity of the society is in the final analysis more beneficial to them and their offspring, then a little immediate monetary savings. Either that or ir requires altruistic morally conscious companies

 

 

You think that's bad just wait until you hear about this little thing called "Democracy"...now that's scary!

 

Imagine consumers... er I mean...voters making decisions! Why the very thought is scandalous.

[j_b]

in some twisted way, you are indeed right PP: a poorly informed consumer is nearly as scary as a poorly informed voter ...

[selkirk]

ah but theres two subtle differences PP. Who someone votes for doesn't always have an immediate, and noticeable effect on an individuals current life. At the time of a vote it's an ephemeral effect. This individual promises me more than the other person. But now, saving 75cents on a CD at Wally World, that's money in your pocket for a can of smokeless! The little guy who's getting paid peanuts in asia to make that CD case in a plant that spews toxins into the river can go use his own buying power to fix it. oh, wait..... nevermind.

 

If the majority of people were good at looking ahead we wouldn't have an obesity epedemic, aids rampant in africa, smoking prevalent anywhere, climbers.

 

And 2nd were not directly making decisions with our votes. Were electing someone who we feel will be capable of making a better informed decision than we are. Were not a true democracy remember, but a representative democracy. In addition, every few years we have the right to change our mind about who we voted for and vote in another weasel to make decisions for us.

[Peter_Puget]

ah but theres two subtle differences PP. Who someone votes for doesn't always have an immediate, and noticeable effect on an individuals current life. At the time of a vote it's an ephemeral effect. This individual promises me more than the other person. But now, saving 75cents on a CD at Wally World, that's money in your pocket for a can of smokeless! The little guy who's getting paid peanuts in asia to make that CD case in a plant that spews toxins into the river can go use his own buying power to fix it. oh, wait..... nevermind.

 

Capitialism will in fact China from the same fate as the Aral Sea. link

If the majority of people were good at looking ahead we wouldn't have an obesity epedemic, aids rampant in africa, smoking prevalent anywhere, climbers.

 

And 2nd were not directly making decisions with our votes. Were electing someone who we feel will be capable of making a better informed decision than we are. Were not a true democracy remember, but a representative democracy. Are you saying that our congressman do not represent us? Onthat I would somewhat agree but I see you are being a bit consistent by suggesting democract is a bad thing. In addition, every few years we have the right to change our mind about who we voted for and vote in another weasel to make decisions for us.

[selkirk]

Somehow I don't think it's capitalism that's going to save that region of China. It's going to come from top down regulation, not from buying power or a truely free market. At some point the civil unrest will likely force the Government to up the environmental standards. Buts that's not capitalistic pressure. It's either top down regulation or bottom up revolution.

 

The company won't do it in and of itself. The mandate is going to come from something other than consumer $$$, which is agains the libertarian ideal, as I understand it, of no governmental regulation of business at all.

 

And no, I don't think a pure democracy would be a good think with an uneducated populace. As a representative democracy we choose people to be proffesional decision makers and to represent our needs/desires, which they do an ok job of. Since it's their job they have the time and need to better informed about both sides of the issues at hand, which the average person doesn't. A pure democracy the size of our nation would be unwieldy an ineffective at best, if it even remained a true democracy. I kind of have a feeling that so few would actually participate that we'd end up somewhere between a representative democracy, and a pure one with a smaller body of people making the decision (though much larger than the current one), and the vast majority of the people absorbed in their daily lives.