Originally posted by Observer99
More exposure to universities, especially ivy-league universities, means more exposure to socialist philosophies. There is also the "gun-toting hick" element. I don't see that as positive or negative, but if you have a lifestyle including guns you are much more likely to sympathize with second-amendment rights and the conservative position. It is also cultural. The politically uninformed, being around those of a certain political disposition, will tend to adopt some of their arguments.
Left-wing, right-wing. Both brainwashed. Both should be ashamed of themselves.
Show me the demographic of people who have actually risen above the partisan war and started thinking for themselves. I think it's like, me and a few hundred other people.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
the word "socialism" is typiically abused by giving it a demonozing context. but using it to describe education is petty and redundant and shows how truly shallow you are. for the reason being that...
...the exchange of information is inherently socialistic. no-one owns an idea. or, oppositely, everyone owns an idea. we are all equal players in the realm of conceptual discourse.
if you participate in the exchange of ideas, you are practicing socialism. oh nooooooo!!!
so much for transcending the paradigm and "thinking for yourself". the two of you have revealed your true intentions.
Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism
Intellectuals, particularly academic intellectuals, tend to favor socialism and interventionism. How was the American university transformed from a center of higher learning to an outpost for socialist-inspired culture and politics?
More generally, US higher education often looks like a clear case of the inmates running the asylum. That is, the students who were radicalized in the 1960s have now risen to positions of influence within colleges and universities. One needs only to observe the aggressive pursuit of "diversity" in admissions and hiring, the abandonment of the traditional curriculum in favor of highly politicized "studies" based on group identity, the mandatory workshops on sensitivity training, and so on.
A 1989 study for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching used the categories "liberal" and "conservative." It found that 70 percent of the professors in the major liberal arts colleges and research universities considered themselves liberal or moderately liberal, with less than 20 percent identifying themselves as conservative or moderately conservative. (Of course, the term "liberal" here means left-liberal or socialist, not classical liberal.)
Why do so many university professors — and intellectuals more generally — favor socialism and interventionism? F. A. Hayek offered a partial explanation in his 1949 essay "The Intellectuals and Socialism." Hayek asked why "the more active, intelligent and original men among [American] intellectuals … most frequently incline toward socialism." His answer is based on the opportunities available to people of varying talents.
Academics tend to be highly intelligent people. Given their leftward leanings, one might be tempted to infer from this that more intelligent people tend to favor socialism. However, this conclusion suffers from what empirical researchers call "sample selection bias." Intelligent people hold a variety of views. Some are lovers of liberty, defenders of property, and supporters of the "natural order" — i.e., defenders of the market. Others are reformers, wanting to remake the world according to their own visions of the ideal society.
Hayek argues that exceptionally intelligent people who favor the market tend to find opportunities for professional and financial success outside the Academy (i.e., in the business or professional world). Those who are highly intelligent but ill-disposed toward the market are more likely to choose an academic career. For this reason, the universities come to be filled with those intellectuals who were favorably disposed toward socialism from the beginning.
Some are lovers of liberty, defenders of property, and supporters of the "natural order" —i.e., defenders of the market. Others are reformers, wanting to remake the world according to their own visions of the ideal society.
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is any system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law. According to natural law theory, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it).
Noun 1. natural order - the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws
In philosophy, the natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. It encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another, in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce.
what he calls the natural order, a system free of both taxation and coercive monopoly in which jurisdictions freely compete for adherents. In his Introduction to the book, he lists other names used elsewhere to refer to the same thing, including "ordered anarchy," "private property anarchism," "anarcho-capitalism," "autogovernment," "private law society," and "pure capitalism."