Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Possible legislation against University liberalism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Colorado State Senator Attacks University Bias

"Critics accused the senator of cooking up a quota scheme for conservative professors and encouraging students to blacklist and snitch on their teachers."

Ackowledgement is the first step to solving a problem, even if the law doesn't pass (and I doubt it will), but I'm not so sure force is the way to resolve the issue. It's the way THEY play the game, and I despise it. What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure force is the way to resolve the issue

They get their funding from non-consenting taxpayers, so the use of force has already been initiated, and the "professors" are knowing and willing beneficiaries of the use of force. What's more, they spend their entire carreers advocating the continued use of force. So I don't think we should have any compunctions about answering them with force; in fact, the correct thing to do would be to try these people and throw them in jail, or even to execute those of them who are found guilty of high treason.

What keeps this from happening is that Americans don't see why it is immoral to forcibly redistribute wealth and why the knowing and willing beneficiaries of such redistribution deserve to be treated as criminals. So the first step in solving the problem is to make Americans see this fact; once that is accomplished, the rest will come pretty easily.

While the proposed legislation was obviously not authored with the above in mind, it has the effect of drawing attention to the existence of a problem. And when people begin to recognize the existence problems, and develop a willingness to solve them, that provides a good opportunity for Objectivists to explain why the problems exist and how they can be eliminated.

(There are many similar opportunities nowadays; for example, the Catholic church's lack of moral clarity--to put it mildly--with regard to pedophilia and terrorism is prompting many people to re-examine their moral evaluation of Catholicism.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard, as I've most often heard it articulated, is: would this job be performed in a free market? That makes sense to me. You're not responsible for the government's intervention in the economy, and you shouldn't be a martyr.

Incidentally, note that Rand never said that people who accept AND support government scholarships should be legally culpable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The difference is in rights - as soon as one claims they are not an inherent universal absolute, one has none (one can claim a thing merely as a privelege revokable, which means revokable at any time by others). The university professors claim debts against the lives of taxpayers and is therefore a moral criminal; the rational scholarship candidate claims "public property", which really means "that which by rights any and all have a claim to", and is there morally clean. The former claims your life; the latter claims something nobody owns. Yes, the number of bills and the colorful patterns printed on them may in fact be the same in both cases: it is the content and context of the claims by which one judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think people ought to be put in jail (or worse) for teaching the wrong ideas?

No. Merely teaching the wrong ideas is not an initiation of force and therefore not a matter for the criminal justice system to deal with. It is (legally) OK to teach communism in a private school.

Or people who are "knowing and willing beneficiaries of the use of force",
If I ran a pirate ship and offered you a job as a sailor, wouldn't your acceptance of the job make you an accomplice in my crimes as a pirate? Even if your "job description" didn't include active involvement in capturing and looting ships, just normal sailor's activities, you would get paid with stolen money, for helping me sail the ship so I could steal money. That pretty much means that you are getting a share of the loot in exchange for your assistance in obtaining the loot, in other words you are an accomplice. :P

i.e., just about any teacher at any school anywhere in the U.S.?

Only the teachers who advocate the use of force to fund schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point just occured to me....I go to a California state university. My education is heavily subsidized by the "masses" of California, my family included, and I will heavily subsidize the education of many others like myself, by force, in whichever state I choose to live.

The survival of the state school system, and the survival of my many professors' careers, depends on my (and the rest of those who are the products of public education's) willingness to acquiesce to such a system, hence thier self-serving interest in pursuading me that this forced-altruistic system is morally correct. On top, the fact that I am willingly allowing myself to be educated by such a system is an acquiscence on my part all in itself. Any fight I put up after-the-fact would make me a hypocrite.

Probably a lot of other students are in the same position that I am in. I know Rand said a lot on this topic--Does anyone know where I could find that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top, the fact that I am willingly allowing myself to be educated by such a system is an acquiscence on my part all in itself. Any fight I put up after-the-fact would make me a hypocrite.

If you are taxed against your will, going to a tax-funded school does not constitute acquiescence in your being taxed and does not make you a hypocrite. Getting some of your stolen money back is part of the fight against theft. It is paying the taxes and NOT benefiting from them that would be acquiescence and make you a hypocrite: you disagree with being looted, but do nothing to get back your stolen property. You can't fight the doctrine of selflessness by being selfless.

But the best way to fight theft is to refuse to be robbed. When there are enough people who recognize the immorality of taxation, we could start organizing things like "taxpayer's strikes." If one guy refuses to pay taxes, he'll be thrown in jail, but if half the nation does so--including many of the major corporations that keep America alive--what can the IRS do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...