Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[TemplarKormac]

You mean the brainwashed tend to lean towards lefts ideas. Your premise that "education" is what occurs in modern universities is only accepted by mindless drones.

I think you are just making excuses as to why you were not smart enough to achieve anything in higher education.

I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, asshole.

Got heeem!

 

[Billy000]

You mean the brainwashed tend to lean towards lefts ideas. Your premise that "education" is what occurs in modern universities is only accepted by mindless drones.

I think you are just making excuses as to why you were not smart enough to achieve anything in higher education.

I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, asshole.

Then why are you even bitching about it? clearly you didn't develop any critical thinking skills while you were in Uni because its completley retarded to suggest modern higher education is completley about brainwashing from the left.

 

[Billy000]

What is your degree in?

I have a BA in psychology.

How much student loan debt do you have? Are you in grad school or do you have a job?

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think you are just making excuses as to why you were not smart enough to achieve anything in higher education.

I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, asshole.

Then why are you even bitching about it? clearly you didn't develop any critical thinking skills while you were in Uni because its completley retarded to suggest modern higher education is completley about brainwashing from the left.

Question, which one of you has a college degree? Apparently not you. You have nothing left to throw at bripat except "you're stupid, asshole."

Ha, I never went to college and I do believe I have more critical thinking skills than you!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You could always just ask me directly. Yes, the philosopher. Even if i didn't know who he was, it wouldn't change the validity of my question.

Well you seem to be ignoring that there was a time when all of the great intellectuals favored Classical Liberalism, so, now my question, why do you think they favored Classical Liberalism back then?

Then, why do you think intellectuals favor Modern Liberalism (Keynesian Socialism) today?

What do you believe caused this shift?

All the great philosophers as in who? There has always been more to philosophy then enlightenment.

I can't answer that question. Can you answer it? If I were to take a shot in the dark, I think popular ideas reflect the context of the time period. It would be about what is contemporary. Classic liberalism probably sounded appealing to many thinkers because of how flawed of a system aristocracy was.

Nowadays, there is a middle ground. Moderate liberalism is middle ground. That is what appeals to the educated.

In your general opinion, if John Locke were born today, would he be a Modern Liberal?

Keep John Locke's attack on Sir Robert's Patriarcha in mind.

 

[Esmeralda]

How much student loan debt do you have? Are you in grad school or do you have a job?

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

What's enough, cmon, this is an anonymous forum? So what is your job and salary?

LOL You actually expect someone to say their job and salary on here? Get real and stop being a bully. Do you tell complete strangers your salary, what your personal debt is? I don't even tell my friends those things, much less a forum of complete strangers. And if he doesn't want to share with this forum what his job is, that is his business; it is not something for you to bully anyone about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How much student loan debt do you have? Are you in grad school or do you have a job?

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

What's enough? Cmon, this is an anonymous forum. So what is your job and salary?

He's lying about the job part.

 

[Billy000]

Well you seem to be ignoring that there was a time when all of the great intellectuals favored Classical Liberalism, so, now my question, why do you think they favored Classical Liberalism back then?

Then, why do you think intellectuals favor Modern Liberalism (Keynesian Socialism) today?

What do you believe caused this shift?

All the great philosophers as in who? There has always been more to philosophy then enlightenment.

I can't answer that question. Can you answer it? If I were to take a shot in the dark, I think popular ideas reflect the context of the time period. It would be about what is contemporary. Classic liberalism probably sounded appealing to many thinkers because of how flawed of a system aristocracy was.

Nowadays, there is a middle ground. Moderate liberalism is middle ground. That is what appeals to the educated.

In your general opinion, if John Locke were born today, would he be a Modern Liberal?

Keep John Locke's attack on Sir Robert's Patriarcha in mind.

I have no idea. I really don't know much about him.

 

[Billy000]

How much student loan debt do you have? Are you in grad school or do you have a job?

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

What's enough? Cmon, this is an anonymous forum. So what is your job and salary?

Why do you want to know? What possible relevance does it have to what we are talking about? Are you trying to dick measure? Because that would just be pathetic.

 

[Billy000]

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

What's enough? Cmon, this is an anonymous forum. So what is your job and salary?

He's lying about the job part.

Oh yeah? Based on what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

All the great philosophers as in who? There has always been more to philosophy then enlightenment.

I can't answer that question. Can you answer it? If I were to take a shot in the dark, I think popular ideas reflect the context of the time period. It would be about what is contemporary. Classic liberalism probably sounded appealing to many thinkers because of how flawed of a system aristocracy was.

Nowadays, there is a middle ground. Moderate liberalism is middle ground. That is what appeals to the educated.

In your general opinion, if John Locke were born today, would he be a Modern Liberal?

Keep John Locke's attack on Sir Robert's Patriarcha in mind.

I have no idea. I really don't know much about him.

Then how can you claim to be a liberal?

 

[Esmeralda]

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

What's enough? Cmon, this is an anonymous forum. So what is your job and salary?

Why do you want to know? What possible relevance does it have to what we are talking about? Are you trying to dick measure? Because that would just be pathetic.

Don't let him bully you. It is not relevant to the discussion. It is none of his business. He is being a bully. That's what stupid people do: they bully others--it's pretty much all they've got.

 

[Billy000]

In your general opinion, if John Locke were born today, would he be a Modern Liberal?

Keep John Locke's attack on Sir Robert's Patriarcha in mind.

I have no idea. I really don't know much about him.

Then how can you claim to be a liberal?

Are you really this stupid?

 

[bripat9643]

I think you are just making excuses as to why you were not smart enough to achieve anything in higher education.

I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, asshole.

Then why are you even bitching about it? clearly you didn't develop any critical thinking skills while you were in Uni because its completley retarded to suggest modern higher education is completley about brainwashing from the left.

If you had any critical thinking skills you'd know that what I said is the obvious truth. 95% of what they teach in subjects like "political science" and "sociology" is bunk. It's propaganda.

 

[Billy000]

What's enough? Cmon, this is an anonymous forum. So what is your job and salary?

Why do you want to know? What possible relevance does it have to what we are talking about? Are you trying to dick measure? Because that would just be pathetic.

No, I am trying to see the perspective you come from to make your remarks.

Okay well that's all I am going to tell you so draw any conclusions you like.

 

[Esmeralda]

What's enough, cmon, this is an anonymous forum? So what is your job and salary?

LOL You actually expect someone to say their job and salary on here? Get real and stop being a bully. Do you tell complete strangers your salary, what your personal debt is? I don't even tell my friends those things, much less a forum of complete strangers. And if he doesn't want to share with this forum what his job is, that is his business; it is not something for you to bully anyone about.

I am in the commodities industry, right now I make about 5k a month, and my parents paid for my school, so I have no debt. Jesus, that wasn't so hard.

I am trying to get a profile of the guy to see where his comments are coming from. How the fuck am I bullying him?

You are being a bully. Whether or not it is true, what you make, it is still none of your business what others make. Have the decency to respect others' right to privacy. An intelligent person realizes that other people have differing views on what is comfortable for them. Just because you, hypothetically, have no problems saying your salary on here, that does not mean others have to feel the same way.

 

[Billy000]

What's enough? Cmon, this is an anonymous forum. So what is your job and salary?

Why do you want to know? What possible relevance does it have to what we are talking about? Are you trying to dick measure? Because that would just be pathetic.

Don't let him bully you. It is not relevant to the discussion. It is none of his business. He is being a bully. That's what stupid people do: they bully others--it's pretty much all they've got.

Lol thank you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

All the great philosophers as in who? There has always been more to philosophy then enlightenment.

I can't answer that question. Can you answer it? If I were to take a shot in the dark, I think popular ideas reflect the context of the time period. It would be about what is contemporary. Classic liberalism probably sounded appealing to many thinkers because of how flawed of a system aristocracy was.

Nowadays, there is a middle ground. Moderate liberalism is middle ground. That is what appeals to the educated.

In your general opinion, if John Locke were born today, would he be a Modern Liberal?

Keep John Locke's attack on Sir Robert's Patriarcha in mind.

I have no idea. I really don't know much about him.

John Locke is founder of the philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution of the United States.

If you summoned a congregation of today's "most distinguished" law professors, they wouldn't write a Constitution anything like ours today. Their thoughts are guided by Sir Robert's philosophy, the antitheses of John Locke's philosophy.

These same professors say that the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant and useless, when it's actually the most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights, assuming that someone knows about Natural Rights.

Part 1, Natural Rights
One of the most polysemous words in American vernacular is the word liberal. The meaning of this word has evolved over the centuries, whilst the meaning itself has had several different variations at any point in time. The history of the word's transformation is fascinating, for the examination of the subject provides the reader with both invaluable and essential knowledge, knowledge that is requisite to understand the very philosophical foundations of our Constitution.
Although the basic concepts of Classical Liberalism have existed since antiquity, it is best to begin this inquiry at the inception of Classical Liberalism during the Age of Enlightenment, founded by the philosopher John Locke. In order to understand John Locke, we must also understand one of those most responsible for influencing his development of Classical Liberal ideology.
Our investigation beings with a man named John Milton and the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.

The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.

Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.

However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects, are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.

The theory presented by John Milton was only rudimentary at best. It was from this idea that great philosophers and other writers would build upon, paving the way towards republican form of government, social contract and natural rights. The first of these philosophers to whom we pay homage if John Locke, the most influential of all the Enlightenment thinkers upon the Constitution of the United States.

In the year 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises on Government, in direct response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a book that declared that all government is absolute monarchy, and that no man is born free. In the very beginning of Filmer's book, he states:

'Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude' …

But howsoever this vulgar opinion [above paragraph] hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy …

This desperate assertion whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects follows — as the authors of it conceive — as a necessary consequence of that former position of the supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind, and liberty to choose what form of government it please …

Secondly, I am not to question or quarrel at the rights or liberties of this or any other nation; my task is chiefly to inquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what or how many these are, but whether they were derived from the laws of natural liberty or from the grace and bounty of princes. My desire and hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample privileges as any nation under heaven; the greatest liberty in the world — if it be duly considered — is for a people to live under a monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this kingdom; all other shows or pretexts of liberty are but several degrees of slavery, and a liberty only to destroy liberty.

Notice the text in bold, Sir Robert would have his readers believe that we have no rights, only privileges which are extended by the grace and goodwill of the King. Herein exists the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, where the King is Sovereign, and the Subjects are no more than serfs. In the words of John Locke, from the the first chapter of his Treatise:

...that in a book [Patriarcha], which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.

The ancient strife between Liberalism and Statism had been ever going, and continues to this very day. Either we are born with certain unalienable rights, bestowed upon us by the Creator, or we are born as Subjects, a distinction chosen for us by the Creator, and we exist at the mercy and grace of Kings. For the meantime, we will examine the former, and abandon the latter — at least for now.

Our study of John Locke shall consist of three pillars:
I. Natural Rights
II. Social Contract
III. Republicanism

We start with the theory of natural rights, established upon the axiom (quoted from the Declaration of Independence), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (herein titled the Unalienable Axiom for the remainder of this article). In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first investigate the meaning of the word unalienable. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold or transferred.” It is safe to assume that this is the meaning which Thomas Jefferson intended when composing the Declaration of Independence.

There also exists another word of which we must pay heed to, that is the word inalienable. Modern authorities would have us believe that there exists no difference between the words unalienable and inalienable, that the word unalienable was abandoned in favor of inalienable, because the 19th Century placed more emphasis on Latin variants of English than the Anglicized variants; the negative prefix in- is derived from Latin, where the negative prefix un- descends from the original Germanic roots of the English language.

However, there exists an acute difference between unalienable and inalienable, a difference which modern authorities wish you to remain ignorant of. In the year 1952, the Kansas City Court of Appeals made the ruling: Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent.

The implications of the ruling are tremendous, but also necessary. There is nothing intrinsically evil in this ruling. For instance, your life is an unalienable right, it cannot be transferred to another; however, your property is an inalienable right, as it can be transferred to another upon your Consent. Unfortunately, the word unalienable has been expunged from American vocabulary, and this was caused neither by coincidence nor the progression of time. This was a calculated effort made by the élite in order to impose Roman Civil Law upon the United States, instead of English Common Law. The former is adjudicated under Admiralty Jurisdiction; the latter falls under the jurisdiction of either Law or Equity. However, this deception by the élite is for another chapter, for now we continue with our study of Natural Rights.

Our Natural Rights are derived from several axioms, one of these axioms is already known to us, namely the Unalienable Axiom. Some of the rights included here are the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, which are general categorizations of entire subsets of rights. None of the rights which fall under these categories may be sold or transferred to another — yet, our property can be sold and transferred to another, which suggests that there exists rights outside of those bestowed upon us by the Creator at birth, unless one wishes to argue that another entity is Sovereign over our property (e.g. Karl Marx).

It is upon this question that the concepts of Property and Contract arise, and our research into John Locke begins. John Locke had two classifications of Property, intrinsic or extrinsic, both of which must be understood. Intrinsic property are your person and being, all of the rights associated with your person and being are unalienable; extrinsic property are those things naturally or lawfully acquired, all of the rights associated with your acquisitions are inalienable.

In his Second Treatise on Government, 1690, John Locke writes about extrinsic property:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

The above is commonly known as the homestead principle, upon which lays the foundation of Capitalism. Each man is entitled to the fruits of his own labor, and each man is entitled to trade his property for another man's property through Contract, and Consent is the only means by which a Contract is made valid. The requirement of Consent is paramount, because this makes each man Sovereign over his acquisitions; without the requisition of Consent, the only Sovereign is Force, and he who possesses the most Force is Sovereign.

Each man has the right to transfer or trade his property, through exchange (barter) or promise (contract). However, the right to exchange, and the right to promise, are unalienable rights, you cannot sell your right to promise! Each of these rights requires the Consent of each person (or party), which allows us to consolidate them under the right to contract. The right to contract is another unalienable right, one cannot transfer this right to another. From this right comes the Inalienable Axiom: That all men are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and through their unalienable right to Contract, are at liberty to confer their fruits to one another.

From the above we see that there exists a hierarchy of natural rights, that the inalienable rights exist as a consequence of an unalienable right (the right to contract), but the existence of the unalienable right does not depend upon any inalienable right. However, one may ask, which rights are inalienable? Which are the rights that we can sell or transfer to another? Perhaps the most simple example of an inalienable right is a deed.

Deed: A written instrument, which has been signed and delivered, by which one individual, the grantor, conveys title to real property to another individual, the grantee; a conveyance of land, tenements, or hereditaments, from one individual to another.

Thus inalienable rights, such as deeds, are contracts that can be sold or transferred to others, their only limitation being those things which are unalienable. It is from these rights that benefits, obligations (liabilities) and privileges arise. It is from this system upon which Commerce depends. However, commercial contracts are not the only types of contracts which exist, for there is also the social contract, which comes in the written form of a Constitution.
So far we have discussed rights and property which are unalienable, and those that are inalienable; however, does there exist other classes of property? Absolutely! Here is a riddle:

There exists something that must be acquired — and once acquired, can never be forfeit. This entity can be transferred to another whilst retained by the owner.

What can this elusive — thing — be? Knowledge. Knowledge is a property that the individual cannot lose — yet he can impart this knowledge to another, who can in turn, impart this same knowledge to yet another person! Knowledge is a property which can be transferred by replication, where the grantor (teacher) retains the original, and the grantee (student) obtains the copy!

What's beautiful about Knowledge is that it can be used forever, without being exhausted; it can be replicated infinitely, without ever consuming resources. Furthermore, Knowledge can be obtained naturally (through discovery), or obtained at little cost or no cost from another (a teacher), or even obtained while being paid (from a master/apprentice relationship)!

Without Knowledge, a man possessing little means, in the form of commodities or other commercial entities, would only be able to increase his worth by the grace of another man bestowing a gift upon him. In other words, without education, a man will never be able to elevate his status on the social ladder, because he will only be able to trade his possessions (including money or currency) for other possessions of equal value, thus if he is born poor, he remains poor forever.

However, with Knowledge, a man can then market his labor for higher wages or other financial returns. Knowledge, an entity that costs nothing to maintain, and rarely costs anything to obtain, can make even the poorest man wealthy. This is what is beautiful about true Capitalism (which no longer exists in the United States nor anywhere else), every man is born with the same unalienable rights; and although they may not be born with equal commercial value, Education and Knowledge becomes the great equalizer, providing all men with equal opportunity to either succeed or fail. However, we shall digress from the subject of Education, and leave it for another chapter, for now we return to Knowledge.

So, Knowledge is a type of property which must be acquired throughout one's life. No man is born with innate Knowledge, we are born a blank slate, Tabula Rasa, which is the Latin term used by John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Knowledge, once acquired, cannot be lost, and can be transfered to others via replication. So, let us define the general properties of Knowledge:

I. All men are born without Knowledge (Tabula Rasa).
II. It can be discovered naturally, either by experience or reasoning.
III. It can be acquired through replication, either by learning from another man, or any other means of learning.
IV. Once a man acquires Knowledge, it can never lost.

So, what types of rights are assoicated with Knowledge? Our Constitution in Article I, Section 8, makes explicit that Congress may secure the exclusive Right to Authors and Inventors to their respective Writings and Discoveres (and Inventions, etc). The most commonly known types are Copyrights and Patents. Since Knowledge is neither innate nor losable, but it can be acquired and transferred, and is inexhaustible, we shall classify property with these types of characteristics as Immaterial, and the rights associated with them as “Immaterial Rights.” This leads to the Immaterial Axiom: That all men deserve to be recognized of their intellectual contributions, and through their unalienable right to Contract, are at liberty to create Contracts governing the Material Use and Applications of Immaterial Property, so long as that man is the originator of the Immaterial Property in question.


Finally, there exists one more type of Property that we discuss. It is an innate property, it can be neither acquired nor transferred, it cannot be lost, but it can be exhausted (in fact it is guaranteed to be exhausted). This Property is known as Time. Time cannot be acquired nor transferred. Time cannot be lost, any elapsed moment of time exists in history forever. However, it can be exhausted, and for each man, will inevitably be exhausted. Any rights pertaining to Time will be known as Temporal Rights. This leads to the Temporal Axiom: That all men are endowed by their Creator with an uncertain amount of Time, in which they may use to pursue their own Happiness; and if they should violate the Happiness of another man, shall forfeit their right to pursue their own Happiness for an Appropriate amount of Time.

So, we have four types of Natural Rights, those that are unalienable, inalienable, immaterial or temporal. We are born with the unalienable rights and the temporal rights, and through our right to contract, we have the ability to create our own rights, either inalienable or immaterial, in order to pursue our own happiness. These rights are the foundation of the philosophy which gave birth to our Constitution, and is clearly expressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Enough. Not in grad school, but planning on it. I got a job relevant to my degree a couple months after graduating.

What's enough, cmon, this is an anonymous forum? So what is your job and salary?

LOL You actually expect someone to say their job and salary on here? Get real and stop being a bully. Do you tell complete strangers your salary, what your personal debt is? I don't even tell my friends those things, much less a forum of complete strangers. And if he doesn't want to share with this forum what his job is, that is his business; it is not something for you to bully anyone about.

Well if you're talking about personal info and making judgements and policies based on it,,,,then yes.....dont be a hypocrit.......

 

[Billy000]

I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, asshole.

Then why are you even bitching about it? clearly you didn't develop any critical thinking skills while you were in Uni because its completley retarded to suggest modern higher education is completley about brainwashing from the left.

If you had any critical thinking skills you'd know that what I said is the obvious truth. 95% of what they teach in subjects like "political science" and "sociology" is bunk. It's propaganda.

I'm not sure you know what critical thinking is. 95% huh? Where does that statistic come from? Your ass? Yes.