Confessions of a College Libertarian

[steve74baywin]

I liked this.

http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/confessi ... ian-part-i

By Benjamin Levine at 11:25AM
Sep 1, 2011

Being a college student and a libertarian are two difficult identities to hold at the same time, specifically because my professors are almost all admittedly socialist. It wouldn't bother me if the university had a more open attitude toward varying ideas, but often times professors are the "shut-down" type. By this I mean that they shut down any student expressing an idea they disagree with. Not all are like this, of course, but a significant portion are. In addition to this atmosphere, there are numerous statements made during classes that kill me a little inside when I hear them. Here are some gems I have heard from professors so far:

Germany's hyperinflation of post-WWI was caused by capitalism.
George H.W. Bush was an idealist.
Bill Clinton sincerely cared about human rights in Third World countries and his record shows this.
Richard Nixon did not want to use the military if he didn't have to.
George W. Bush was an isolationist.
Barack Obama practices non-interventionism in the Third World and values self-determination for Middle Eastern nations.

I've had merely one week of classes thus far and already this is what I have been told.

I have to be frank and say that my college education is diminished every time a statement like many of the above is made. Why? Because I cannot move past the fact that my professors are blindly pro-status quo and often times give misleading lectures. I understand that my skepticism of government can sometimes get in the way of my education -- especially because one of my majors is Politics -- but nevertheless I have a low tolerance for ignorance (this is compounded when ignorance comes from somebody with a Ph.D.).

I'm sure many of you have encountered a similar situation during your college experience. My best advice: Push back but make sure your argument is fundamentally sound and be prepared for a "fight." Be polite and don't argue in a way which would make the profesor feel threatened. Like most people, professors do not like to be told they're wrong in front of a crowd, so tact is important. If you don't have a strong response to an argument your professor makes, don't just go with whatever you can think of -- go home, do your research, and continue a reasoned debate the next time you're in class.

If you can craft your arguments intelligently you may have a chance of winning over your peers...or they'll continue being sheep. Who knows?

[Lanval]

I liked this.

http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/confessi ... ian-part-i

By Benjamin Levine at 11:25AM
Sep 1, 2011

Being a college student and a libertarian are two difficult identities to hold at the same time, specifically because my professors are almost all admittedly socialist. It wouldn't bother me if the university had a more open attitude toward varying ideas, but often times professors are the "shut-down" type. By this I mean that they shut down any student expressing an idea they disagree with. Not all are like this, of course, but a significant portion are. In addition to this atmosphere, there are numerous statements made during classes that kill me a little inside when I hear them. Here are some gems I have heard from professors so far:

Germany's hyperinflation of post-WWI was caused by capitalism.
George H.W. Bush was an idealist.
Bill Clinton sincerely cared about human rights in Third World countries and his record shows this.
Richard Nixon did not want to use the military if he didn't have to.
George W. Bush was an isolationist.
Barack Obama practices non-interventionism in the Third World and values self-determination for Middle Eastern nations.

I've had merely one week of classes thus far and already this is what I have been told.

I have to be frank and say that my college education is diminished every time a statement like many of the above is made. Why? Because I cannot move past the fact that my professors are blindly pro-status quo and often times give misleading lectures. I understand that my skepticism of government can sometimes get in the way of my education -- especially because one of my majors is Politics -- but nevertheless I have a low tolerance for ignorance (this is compounded when ignorance comes from somebody with a Ph.D.).

I'm sure many of you have encountered a similar situation during your college experience. My best advice: Push back but make sure your argument is fundamentally sound and be prepared for a "fight." Be polite and don't argue in a way which would make the profesor feel threatened. Like most people, professors do not like to be told they're wrong in front of a crowd, so tact is important. If you don't have a strong response to an argument your professor makes, don't just go with whatever you can think of -- go home, do your research, and continue a reasoned debate the next time you're in class.

If you can craft your arguments intelligently you may have a chance of winning over your peers...or they'll continue being sheep. Who knows?

An 18 year old asserts his Ph.D. professors are ignorant after a whole 1 week of class. He doesn't stop to consider that what the professors argue derives from, in most cases, years of thoughtful research and consideration of a wide range of opinions. He has not put in the time or effort necessary for us to take his critiques seriously. He simply mouths what he believes without understanding, nuance or education (I mean the last in the widest sense Steve. You don't have to go to college to read.)

This is what will crush America ~ ignorant people decrying thoughtful, intelligent understanding in favor of simplistic, impractical ideology. Hooray.

Mike

[steve74baywin]

An 18 year old asserts his Ph.D. professors are ignorant after a whole 1 week of class. He doesn't stop to consider that what the professors argue derives from, in most cases, years of thoughtful research and consideration of a wide range of opinions. He has not put in the time or effort necessary for us to take his critiques seriously. He simply mouths what he believes without understanding, nuance or education (I mean the last in the widest sense Steve. You don't have to go to college to read.)

This is what will crush America ~ ignorant people decrying thoughtful, intelligent understanding in favor of simplistic, impractical ideology. Hooray.

Mike

Why don't you go ahead and counter what he asserts? You know, the issues instead of attacking the messenger. You do know what that means when one argues like you do, avoids the issues and attacks the messenger.

How is he wrong in saying the following is incorrect?

Germany's hyperinflation of post-WWI was caused by capitalism.
George H.W. Bush was an idealist.
Bill Clinton sincerely cared about human rights in Third World countries and his record shows this.
Richard Nixon did not want to use the military if he didn't have to.
George W. Bush was an isolationist.
Barack Obama practices non-interventionism in the Third World and values self-determination for Middle Eastern nations.

[Lanval]

An 18 year old asserts his Ph.D. professors are ignorant after a whole 1 week of class. He doesn't stop to consider that what the professors argue derives from, in most cases, years of thoughtful research and consideration of a wide range of opinions. He has not put in the time or effort necessary for us to take his critiques seriously. He simply mouths what he believes without understanding, nuance or education (I mean the last in the widest sense Steve. You don't have to go to college to read.)

This is what will crush America ~ ignorant people decrying thoughtful, intelligent understanding in favor of simplistic, impractical ideology. Hooray.

Mike

Why don't you go ahead and counter what he asserts? You know, the issues instead of attacking the messenger. You do know what that means when one argues like you do, avoids the issues and attacks the messenger.

How is he wrong in saying the following is incorrect?

Germany's hyperinflation of post-WWI was caused by capitalism.
George H.W. Bush was an idealist.
Bill Clinton sincerely cared about human rights in Third World countries and his record shows this.
Richard Nixon did not want to use the military if he didn't have to.
George W. Bush was an isolationist.
Barack Obama practices non-interventionism in the Third World and values self-determination for Middle Eastern nations.

See, this is the kind of thoughtless, ideological response I expected.

1. The poster isn't a messenger; he doesn't argue in favor of anything. What he does do is take a few lines completely out of context and offer them up as proof of something he believes implicitly, and without thoughtful questioning.

Jesus. If the kid posted the same kind of shit about Colin, taking a single comment out of a whole day's work and then treated that comment as representative of Colin, AND THEN suggested that Colin doesn't know what he's talking about ~ even though he's just an 18 year old kid who's only started working on VWs, would you treat his argument with the same respect, with the same seriousness? I hope not.

As for the comments made in the blog; how the hell can I respond to those ~ they aren't arguments, they're little nuggets which are totally out of context. I assume the author of the post doesn't agree with them, but he doesn't say why/how they're wrong. So what's his problem? Who knows...

What do the statements represent? A single half-line taken out of what I assume was a 1 hour lecture? How can I know what the argument was? Maybe the professor said that "George H. W. Bush was an idealist" who turned his back on those ideals to gain the presidency. That doesn't seem too far-fetched to me; but I have no idea, because the original poster wasn't interested in arguing the validity of ideas; he was interested in using information out of context to prove what he already believed was right, regardless of the "truth-value" of the quote he was using.

By the way, that's why academics cite the source of their quotes ~ so you can see if author is using the quote correctly. Hopefully our ignorant 18 year old will take a few more classes before he posts again, so that he understand how to make a real argument, instead of a political screed designed to preach to the choir.

Mike

[Velokid1]

This child decided he has nothing to learn from men or women whose political ideas don't mirror his own? I'd be 10x dumberer myself if I had refused to learn anything from people who I disagree with. Not to mention that I would have like 4 friends and no family left to share my years with. Jefferson himself touched on this:


     
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

[ruckman101]

This child decided he has nothing to learn from men or women whose political ideas don't mirror his own? I'd be 10x dumberer myself if I had refused to learn anything from people who I disagree with. Not to mention that I would have like 4 friends and no family left to share my years with. Jefferson himself touched on this:


     
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

I don't agree.


neal

[Velokid1]

Thats okay. We can still be friends. Thomas Jefferson said it's okay and his word I consider gospel. Well, MY interpretation of his word anyway.

[ruckman101]

Actually, I do agree, I should just quit trying that thing I've heard tell is called "humor", as I obviously can't pull it off.

We's all folks, there is power in numbers. If you've got yours and don't want to play, that's fine. Goody for you. But beware the day you ain't got yours. Isolationism is fine for a hermit.


neal

[Velokid1]

No I got ya. I thought it was funny.

[steve74baywin]

This child decided he has nothing to learn from men or women whose political ideas don't mirror his own?

I'm not sure how you jump to that conclusion. He didn't say that. I don't see where he said or implied that he had "nothing to learn". And what he commented on I wouldn't call "political ideas", it is more like info dealing with certain people of a certain time, more like history or facts, not ideas.

Jefferson himself touched on this:
     
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

This may be an error in my perception, but it sure felt like some abandoned their friendship with me because of my belief's or my delivery. Maybe it's because there was never a friendship in the first place.

[Lanval]

This child decided he has nothing to learn from men or women whose political ideas don't mirror his own?

I'm not sure how you jump to that conclusion. He didn't say that. I don't see where he said or implied that he had "nothing to learn". And what he commented on I wouldn't call "political ideas", it is more like info dealing with certain people of a certain time, more like history or facts, not ideas.

I'm not sure how you didn't arrive at that conclusion. Read what the kid says:

"My best advice: Push back but make sure your argument is fundamentally sound and be prepared for a "fight." Be polite and don't argue in a way which would make the profesor feel threatened. Like most people, professors do not like to be told they're wrong in front of a crowd, so tact is important. If you don't have a strong response to an argument your professor makes, don't just go with whatever you can think of -- go home, do your research, and continue a reasoned debate the next time you're in class."

In other words, instead of considering whether the professor might be correct, or have a point, the kid suggests:

1. Argue on the spot that the interpretation is wrong.
2. If you're not ready on the spot, go home and read up, then go back and argue he's wrong.

In neither case does he even consider the possibility that he has something to learn; he doesn't even consider that his own ideas, even though he's only 18 and lacks both experience and education (again, in the widest way possible ~ bet dumbass up there has never read either The Federalist Papers or de Tocqueville; bet you haven't either) yet somehow, rather than arguing that one ought to listen to the opinions of others, he basically argues that you should shout down people who disagree with you, while adhering to a political viewpoint with unwavering loyalty.

If you disagree with this interpretation, show me where in the post he suggests any of the following:

1. He might not understand the professor
2. Libertarianism may be incomplete/wrong

He doesn't even consider the possibility. That's arrogance and ignorance all wrapped up in tidy little self-satisfied package. Woe be to our future with such uninflected zealotry at the helm.


Steve: May I suggest that you stop being blind to the possibility that you are wrong? Also, read carefully; I always do, and you will need to also, in order to carry on a discussion with me.

Mike

[ruckman101]

Last I knew, universities don't offer Conspiracies101 in their curriculums. Folks with views outside what's generally accepted as true need to know the other before attempting to question it. It's true, the victors write the history. Alternatives can and are explored. But if what you have concluded as "truths" differ from what is presented in class, those truths will still be marked wrong on the exams.


neal

[Lanval]

Last I knew, universities don't offer Conspiracies101 in their curriculums. Folks with views outside what's generally accepted as true need to know the other before attempting to question it. It's true, the victors write the history. Alternatives can and are explored. But if what you have concluded as "truths" differ from what is presented in class, those truths will still be marked wrong on the exams.


neal

I won't disagree with that, and I'd add that there are as many ideologues in academia as out of it. I offer my own experience, these many years ago:

As an undergrad at the UofO, I took a US gov't class which was required. The UofO had a guy teaching it who was a visiting professor from mainland China. Now this was back in the 80's so the guy was a diehard Marxist, and all the books we read offered variations on the Marxist theme: American gov't exists by and for the wealthy.

At the time, coming from a mill town in Oregon, and as a child of Oakies who worked in those mills, I rejected his arguments as biased. Later, upon reflection, I came to see that much of what was argued in the books was true, broadly speaking. I'm no Marxist today, by any stretch, but I'd be a fool if I didn't see how often the wealthy are able to co-opt the democratic process to their own benefit.

In fairness to the kid who made the post Steve referenced, he's young and I was too; but even then I didn't go around arguing professors didn't know shit ~ I figured they had spent years learning their stuff, and I was there to learn what they knew. I didn't always agree with it, but it was a rare moment indeed when I was confronted with something that could reasonably be called "bunk".

The school is there to teach you a perspective; they grade on your understanding of that. If you're going to call "bullshit" on that perspective, you'd better bring some heavy research to back your argument up. That's some of what I did in grad school ~ I made plenty of enemies, including my advisors. The difference is that at 35, I was a lot more thoughtful about where, when and how I called BS, and had the chops to back up whatever I said with extensively supported arguments. And EVEN THEN, I mostly didn't do that ~ I tried to learn what my prof's were trying to teach; not because I agreed with them necessarily, but because they are thoughtful people who've spent a long time getting to the point where they can/will make that argument, and it's only just that I be respectful of that knowledge.

At the end of the day, rhetoric begins with some basic agreement about terms, values, etc. Lacking those, no argument can continue. So when the kid walks into a class with the attitude that "I'm right in absolute terms" he's already failed himself. And that, Neal, is what really devalues his education ~ not some professor who won't take the kid's opinions into account.

Best,

Mike

[Velokid1]

Steve look at the sentence starting with "I have to be frank..." and the sentence after it. He says he has trouble learning the subject matter because his profs insist on "maintaining the status quo.". And above that he gives examples of ways they maintain the status quo... And all those examples have to do with politics, the economy and social issues.

[Amskeptic]

Steve look at the sentence starting with "I have to be frank..." and the sentence after it. He says he has trouble learning the subject matter because his profs insist on "maintaining the status quo.". And above that he gives examples of ways they maintain the status quo... And all those examples have to do with politics, the economy and social issues.

This thread is a good illustration of the insidiousness of the breakdown of intellectual thought. That College Libertarian "confessor" makes piles of suppositions like you pointed out, and others like "almost all admittedly socialist". I do not know of many intellects who allow themselves to be labelled in such a trivial way. And "maintaining the status quo", that is a peach of an assumption.
Bad Students Go To Hell,
Colin