Why are so many college students far-left liberals or socialists?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please explain in detail how the government forced you to attend public university.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in Canada. As far as I know we dont have any private universities. Even if we did, having to pay taxes and then pay for private schooling isnt a free market. I dont see why you dont get this.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I *do* get it. I want to know how your government forced you to attend ANY university, let alone a public one.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly where should they purchase their lunch, in order to best avoid capitalism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where am I supposed to get educated in order best to avoid the government?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying both complaints are non-hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

One is, one isn't. But of course, this doesn't make any difference, and is just yet another attempt of yours to hijack and derail the conversation. Don't worry about the actual arguments, because you know you can't win them, just re-focus the conversation on (perceived) character defects of the people making the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
PVN -

You're objecting to my post, which was simply a response in kind to an ACist's previous post, but failing to object to his. You could transposed the target groups of our respective posts and lost nothing, content-wise.

If and when you elect to exhibit enough intellectual honesty to "voluntarily" apply this sort of criticism equally to identical posts, whether offered by political ally or not, whether criticizing inconsistant behavior of ACists or not, perhaps I'll start to maybe think about considering whether or not I should contemplate potentially someday taking you seriously, maybe.

But I won't hold my breath in the meantime. DUCY?

Best regards as always,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are admitting I'm right,

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. In fact you're wrong. You just elect to be inconsistently wrong, when it suits your political ends to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
you're just pissy because someone else did something and I didn't read his post?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, I'm accusing you of being intellectually dishonest. Did you fail to read his post, and therefore chose to reply to mine without even bothering about its context? Or did you in fact read his post and now are merely throwing up smoke?

This post is a microcosm of the analyses of statism vs. ACism that you and I have gone 'round about: I don't know whether you're a hypocrite or merely an opportunist, but when it comes to deciding whether or not you're actually engaging in intellectually honest discussion, it doesn't really matter all that much, does it?

[andyfox]

Well, when I went to school, back in the Bronze Age, we weren't taught Earth worship. We were taught that the settlers "won" the west from savages; that our country was always right and our enemies always wrong becasuse God blessed America; etc. Reading a few books by William Appleman Williams and Charles Beard and Francis Jennings gave me a different perspective.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
My theory is that "universal security seekers" typically outnumber "strategic risk takers" in the general population pretty much regardless of education level, intelligence, etc. Crank up the education level of an extremely security-minded person, and you end up with your stereotypical socialist college prof.

Why is this forum filled with Libertarians and ACists? Because poker by nature selects for strategic risk takers, and tends to weed out passive security-mindedness. Of course there is not 100% correlation with political views, but there is obviously a lot of cross-over.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really good post.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, when I went to school, back in the Bronze Age, we weren't taught Earth worship. We were taught that the settlers "won" the west from savages; that our country was always right and our enemies always wrong becasuse God blessed America; etc. Reading a few books by William Appleman Williams and Charles Beard and Francis Jennings gave me a different perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt it. A lot has changed since then. Some of the crap they push down kids throats now would make you seem like a reactionary.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first is this: You said you paid a ton of money IN ADDITION TO your taxes. You didn't have to do that. There are private universities in the US, some of which don't cost a lot to attend. Yet you chose a government-sponsored school anyway. So did you attend it because you believed the government-sponsored school could provide you a better education? In other words, are you saying universities in the private sector are inferior to their public-sector counterparts, thus making it worthwhile to pay a premium to attend the latter? Or did you have some other motive in attending an expensive state-funded university?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in fact, all private universities I was accepted to cost 3x's as much money. You want to force me to pay taxes for the public school but call me a hypocrite if I go there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning you didn't apply to inexpensive private universities.

[ QUOTE ]
Every ACist who drives on the roads is a hypocrite, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Right.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's keep going in circles until you see how stupid this is.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more like a spiral than a circle. Hopefully we'll reach the center, eventually.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The second is this: most Americans did/do not attend college. If you did choose to do so, you in effect accepted a subsidy from somebody. Yes, you paid for part of your education, but not all of it. Other people, some of whom did not attend, paid for the rest. How could you, in good conscience, attend a public school under such circumstances, knowing as you must have that you were a net beneficiary of the coercive system? Especially in light of the fact that you were going to have to pay a large sum of money out of pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I accepted a subsidy from myself. Noted.

[/ QUOTE ]
And from others, of course. Why not just own up to the fact that you like the system just fine as long as you're the one being subsidized?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wanting to obtain money has no special bearing on capitalism. The Soviet Union had money, as does the PRC and every other command economy in the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

And did they have iPod's and XBox's?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they had radios and black-and-white TV's. And Zils, possibly the greatest passenger vehicles since the Yugo. What's your point?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your question makes no sense. All states use money, as noted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Family Guy DVD's? But very crafty going out of your way to ignore the same point twice. Bravo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The form of entertainment they buy is a function of what's available, just as it was in the Soviet Union. This isn't a "gotcha". It isn't even a "hope I'll someday getcha". It's a non-point about a non-issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the "help". Please see above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three times.

[/ QUOTE ]
See above yet again.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've already done so just by attending university. You told congress to plan for one extra body each fiscal year you attended, and you accepted involuntary subsidies from others who were unable to attend. You can post 100x, for all I care, about how "you" paid for it. The ugly truth is that you paid for less than you took. You didn't take what you were entitled to. You took what you were entitled to AND what some other guy was entitled to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I paid for less than I took? How do you figure? Show your calculations please.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I'd love to:

You paid X.
"Some other guy" paid Y.
The total number of students attending university is N.

The university cost X+Y.

You attended the university.
"Some other guy" did not.

You received a value of (1/N)*(x+y).
"Some other guy" received a value of 0*(x+y).

You received the benefits of "his" tax payment. "He" did not receive the benefits of your tax payment. By definition, this is a subsidy. You knew this and accepted it. In other words, you knew he was being coerced, but you went ahead and took the money anyway, even committing some of your own (after tax) money in order to make sure you could do it. In other other words, you f*cked him, plain and simple.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, don't understand my equations, etc.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be news to the professors that they are pawns in a great statist conspiracy. As others have said, they are some of the most independent, creative and thoughtful people in our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no questioning that education majors come from the lowest performing cohort of college grads, lowest SATs, low GPAs.

Those that can't, teach.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is complete and utter bs. I know its hard to understand (well actually it isn't) but some people actually like to do the following on a day to day basis:

- pass on knowledge, experience and expertise to other people
- do advanced self directed research with like minded people
- not do mindless repetitive tasks over and over again

Of course you think most university profs were education majors so you clearly have no clue what actually goes on at university.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another Ed major heard from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm smarter and better looking than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's painfully easy to prove me wrong here. Find a breakout of college majors sorted on SATs and you're there.

You won't because I'm correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's beautiful, because he doesn't have to. He thinks he's correct. You're the one who has to prove your statement to him. I don't know which of you is correct because neither of you has given anything factual. Only your opinion. I love politics. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Breaking precedent, I've blown 2 minutes googling this. Ed majors beat out Vocational, Home Ec and Public Affairs and that's about it.

SAT by major

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting thing about this is just the people who go INTO a field. They might not even get through it. There are tons of people who start out in engineering and can't handle it and end up in political science or education or something that doesn't require as much smarts.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government school, which you've already paid for, costs X dollars AFTER taxes.

Private school, costs X-Y dollars AFTER you pay taxes for the government school you aren't attending.

Assuming both X and Y are positive integers, why would you attend the government school?


[/ QUOTE ]

Mabey cause I'm damn rich and want a better education than the public schools can provide. We know as a fact that private schools are better because people are willing to pay twice for their services. Seriously, you shouldnt even argue this anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did not understand my response. I'll explain:

Here is OP. I'm adding italics to make things clearer:
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not because it's two different situations. Who's to say I "benefit" from the government running the education market? I paid a ridiculous amount in tuition on top of my tax dollars. Believe me, I'd be perfectly fine hanging onto my taxes and being left to handle my own education. That option [of "hanging onto my taxes and being left to handle my own education" -J] is violently being taken away from me, whereas no one is stopping the college liberal from not buying iPods and Big Macs and XBox games.

[/ QUOTE ]
OP didn't say he attended a private school. In fact, he said his option to take care of his own education was violently taken away, implying that he attended public school. What he is saying, if I'm understanding him correctly, is that he BOTH:

A) attended public school AND
B) paid a ridiculous amount of tuition to do so

I'm asking: why would one ever do this? If one can attend a private school for less money, and get a better education in the process, why would anyone ever attend public school?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Private school, costs X-Y dollars AFTER you pay taxes for the government school you aren't attending.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming private school costs less than its subsidized competitors? What private schools cost less than state schools?

Not that it validates your point even if you use X+Y.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends which state school we're talking about. OP said he paid "a ridiculous amount" beyond his taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, cause college in general is expensive! Doesn't mean the private schools are even more expensive. I'm trying to point out that I paid a hefty sum AND paid for it in taxes, yet you're still trying to claim I got "more than what I paid for". And I await your calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I provided them in a post just north of this one. Also, just to clarify, you are saying that you did in fact attend a public college or university, correct?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
14,000 x 4 = 64,000? Not according to my calculator.

[/ QUOTE ]

State education system...

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the (incorrect number of) $64,000 was over 4 years? We don't pay our taxes every 4 years, we pay them every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right...do you think totalling everything you paid taxes on through your 18th birthday you were even close to 56k in taxes (let alone the share the goes to university funding)?

[ QUOTE ]
Far-left college liberals are not. They enjoy capitalism and their iPod's and XBox's and Family Guy DVD's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. Both of the far-left college liberals who don't believe in private property and own an iPod are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

you better quickly point out and denounce all other hypocrites in the world, or jogger will demonstrate how you are a hypocrite when it comes to your hypocrite denounciations.

Of course, if he doesn't, then he would be guilty of hypocritical treatment of hypocritical hypocrite attackers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea if we really want to go crazy, we're all hypocrites (even you, Jogger). But whatever, I was just making a pretty simple point that is plainly obvious in everyday college life. Jogger actually stated that he shared my opinion on the matter but for no reason other than to attack my position as an ACist, he had to find a way to call me a hypocrite too.

You want to force me to be a hypocrite at gunpoint, so I guess you win Jogger. Yea, I'm done with this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I just want you to admit that ACists who accept (HUGE) subsidies at the expense of 80%+ of the rest of the population are hypocrites. As I think about it, I'd also like it if you'd admit that ACists who work for government institutions are an even more serious breed of hypocrite.

Heck, I'd even like it if you just roll that idea around in your mind for a while, even if you don't want to answer in public. "ACists who accept massive subsidies, and/or actually seek out and accept jobs working for the government." Just take a minute or two and really contemplate it.

I think every ACist on here tries to claim the moral high ground for his politics (probably every non-AC too), but I truly don't fathom how anybody can inveigh against government on moral grounds while simultaneously bathing in the very government dollars they're decrying. It's like getting a lecture on sexual ethics from a child-molester. Maybe you can listen and not want to take a shower, but I can't.