Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.

Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).

Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?

Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.

It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.

Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).

Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?

Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.

It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.

yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

They used to be controlled by the Constitution. But now that they have subverted it--no one.

Of course, their intentions are good. So don't worry.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

My first response--"no one"--was off-hand, a bit facetious, but not completely off the mark. The real answer would be that the "controllers" and those "who want to be controlled" are controlling each other in a symbiotic relationship. As I've mentioned before, the progressives cannot escape the necessity of feeding the beast they have created. If they do, they both become extinct. The transfers of wealth, the ever-expanding "safety net," the promises of guaranteed security and comfort, of health care and unsustainable benefits, of jobs created by fiat rather than effort, of a social utopia, must be sustained, even if beyond reason or economic viability.

When Jim in CT keeps wondering why the left cannot recognize simple math in relation to the "economy" he doesn't recognize the life and death struggle to which the progressive movement has evolved. It is not about some mere recognition of simple math, it is about maintaining the perception that the progressive agenda "works." That it is ultimately beneficial more than is what they consider outmoded notions of individualism and self reliance and the restraints of the Constitution.

"Perception is reality" as a mode of conduct is a misapplication of relativity. Perception may be relative, but it is not reality. Relativity may explain why an object may be perceived to be standing still in relation to a viewer when in reality both the perceiver and the object are not standing still but are moving at the same pace in the same direction. The notion that perception is actually reality is saying that there is no such thing as reality in an objective sense. It is mostly a useless notion. One who will cross a busy intersection when for whatever personal "perception" he sees no cars may soon be perceiving his own funeral. Taken to its apogee, such a notion assumes the perceiver is God--"reality" is merely a creation of his perception.

But the notion is very useful in politics. At least in the nefarious practice of politics. The molding of mass perception is that method that used to be referred to as propaganda. That word was used a lot in much of the 20th century, especially during the "cold war" between Communism and the West. You don't hear the word used much anymore. Perhaps, the cold war is perceived to have been won. Or, perhaps, those engaging in it prefer not to call attention to the method. And if the media is complicit, or cowed into being called reactionary if it calls attention to it, the thought, or perception, of such a notion disappears.

So the symbiotic relation between the controllers and those who want to be controlled is facilitated by creating the perception that the controllers are constantly fighting for their underlings. That the negative economy, and the conflicts in society are problems they have inherited from a rapacious and oppressive past, but that there is and has been constant improvement due to their effort. And if those being controlled keep perceiving that things are getting better for them and the controllers are working hard at making it so, they will keep voting for them. If, however, there is a collapse, the votes will not be forthcoming. So it is necessary for the controllers to keep the controlled happy--or, at least, that they perceive they are happy.

And if such a time arrives that the perception is lost, and the reality of an unsustainable society becomes obvious, then do the controllers simply admit their error and go away? Or do we move on to a 1984ish or Brave New Worldish perception of reality.