Election thread

[Earthmichael]

The problem with government owned businesses is that they have proven to be very inefficient in actual operation.  Classic examples of this are public schools and the US post office, which have much higher operating costs yet poorer performance than similar private businesses.  Not to mention the extremely high level of corruption often involved in government run enterprises, whether it is road repair crews or travel agencies.

Also, personally owned property tends to be treated much better.  Look at government housing to see this in action.  I once made the mistake of renting a house to through a government housing program waiting for the housing market to improve before I sold it.  Big mistake!  It cost me thousands of dollars to refurbish the house, none of which was covered by the government, nor could be recovered from the deadbeat renters.  They even stole the curtain rods and bilind handles!  What, did they get a dollar from a pawn shop for them?!?

Another example was the Elephant extinction problem, which is now being reversed after now permitting private ownership of elephants.

How could private property be inherently unfair?  If I work and earn money and buy a computer, why is that unfair?  To me, ownership of property is the most fundamental right that government should protect.  Governments that do not protect private property rights historically  fail (like the American collonial commonweaths, which nearly starved to death until they moved away from the commonweath charter).

Proper government has to take into account human nature.  Most people will do what they is best for themselves.  So when the government penalizes married folks who are on social security by removing 50% of the benefits, many couples respond by divorcing and continuing to live together as usual.  When government taxes double wage earner families with higher taxes than singles, many couples just don't get married or get divorced (and still live together).  People or firms, do not naturally cooperate unless they believe it is in their best interest.  Asking them to do it for the "good of society" is not an incentive.  Separating the compensation for a job from the effort and intelligence required to do the job will ultimately fail.

Ideally, a government should have few enough restrictions that those who do not want to continue to work for a wage can start their own business.  Currently, many people who look at this option are dismayed at the cost of compying with volumes of government regulations, and continue as wage earners.  The best thing government can do for the people is to help facilitate people starting small businesses, instead of blocking them with mountains of regulations.

[Buster's Uncle]

You're going to get plenty of traction with arguments about the evils of big government around here.  As I said yesterday, nerds almost always have a strong Libertarian streak, and I'm no exception.  -Not with Cry and Jarl, obviously, but traction with a lot of us. 

The stuff about welfare from the previous post? Not so much.

[cryopyre]

The problem with government owned businesses is that they have proven to be very inefficient in actual operation.  Classic examples of this are public schools and the US post office, which have much higher operating costs yet poorer performance than similar private businesses.  Not to mention the extremely high level of corruption often involved in government run enterprises, whether it is road repair crews or travel agencies.

Also, personally owned property tends to be treated much better.  Look at government housing to see this in action.  I once made the mistake of renting a house to through a government housing program waiting for the housing market to improve before I sold it.  Big mistake!  It cost me thousands of dollars to refurbish the house, none of which was covered by the government, nor could be recovered from the deadbeat renters.  They even stole the curtain rods and bilind handles!  What, did they get a dollar from a pawn shop for them?!?

Another example was the Elephant extinction problem, which is now being reversed after now permitting private ownership of elephants.

How could private property be inherently unfair?  If I work and earn money and buy a computer, why is that unfair?  To me, ownership of property is the most fundamental right that government should protect.  Governments that do not protect private property rights historically  fail (like the American collonial commonweaths, which nearly starved to death until they moved away from the commonweath charter).

Proper government has to take into account human nature.  Most people will do what they is best for themselves.  So when the government penalizes married folks who are on social security by removing 50% of the benefits, many couples respond by divorcing and continuing to live together as usual.  When government taxes double wage earner families with higher taxes than singles, many couples just don't get married or get divorced (and still live together).  People or firms, do not naturally cooperate unless they believe it is in their best interest.  Asking them to do it for the "good of society" is not an incentive.  Separating the compensation for a job from the effort and intelligence required to do the job will ultimately fail.

Ideally, a government should have few enough restrictions that those who do not want to continue to work for a wage can start their own business.  Currently, many people who look at this option are dismayed at the cost of compying with volumes of government regulations, and continue as wage earners.  The best thing government can do for the people is to help facilitate people starting small businesses, instead of blocking them with mountains of regulations.

I will probably write a longer response, especially if you have any questions regarding specific aspects of the ideology, but I want to address a few foundational misunderstandings:

I am a libertarian socialist. I do not advocate government owned firms, only that firms be democratically operated and certain resources defer to public property. Yes, under the *current* system this would specifically mean government ownership, but I have no desire to maintain the government in its current form. It is bloated, large, and very dysfunctional. In no way could it handle a conversion to libertarian socialism under its current state.

Secondly, socialists draw three property distinctions: personal, private, and public. Houses and computers are the first kind. Hydroelectric dams and copper mines are the second. Socialists want the latter to become public property and democratically operated. Exactly where the line is drawn differs for different branches of socialism.

Thirdly, most people are neither inherently selfish or altruistic. Operating under the assumption that they are largely one or the other is why so many pure economic ideologies fail. The reality is our current system reinforces selfishness, but it is not a given. In fact, selfishness and narcissism are typically only strongly present traits of the upper class, whose success is built entirely on competition. In a democratic and cooperative workplace it is likely these traits would no longer be reinforced.

Fourthly, the desire to move away from working for a wage is precisely why most socialists are socialists. Socialists extend the classical values of liberalism (autonomy, agency, democratic principles) to business. They believe that it is better not only for the welfare of the people, but for their mental health, that they have control over their work environment and what they produce.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

[Earthmichael]

BUncle, if the Democratic party was still the party of "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", I would be a Democrat myself.  But now it embraces dolism and an incredible number of amazingly off the wall ideologies.  I have no problem with what any number of people of any sexuality do in their bedroom, but I get concerned when l see all of these in your face demonstrations.  When democratic judges protect the publishing rights of pedophiles to tell other pedophiles how to seduce children.  When groups have as their slogan, "we're ...  we're proud, and we're after your children", and such groups are embraced by the Democratic party.

Yes, the Republican party has some fringers and nutcases as well, but the Republican platform does not embrace them the way that the Democratic party does.

Until people get better educated so that they can get candidates through the primaries that are halfway decent choices, we will end up with elections with two bad choices.  I have looked at the books my children studied in high school.  Instead of some great books like "Democracy in America", "1984", "Atlas Shrugged", etc., they had to read junk like "Life of Pi" and a bunch of other very forgettable books.  Who chooses this?  Mostly, the educational system and media are controlled by liberals (based on polls of teachers and reporters), who seem to want to dumb down the electorate instead of educating them.  My children were taught that slavery was the main issue in the US civil war, that the southern states succession was because of the emancipation of slaves; how dumb is that?!  The emacipation proclamation did not get issued until months after succession.  The succession of the southern states was based on unfair taxation and unconstitutional laws being passed by the northern controlled congress, but you won't find that taught now.

[Buster's Uncle]

This brings up all sorts of issues, and I even agree about the historical point; you must not be a Yankee.  However, my eyes have stopped working, and I'm not up to getting into it tonight.  The bed is singing to me.  Tomorrow, as soon as I get caught up on the overnight and otherwise can string the time together, I promise.

[Earthmichael]

I do not like the term selfish, it is loaded with a lot of negative connotation; I meant exactly what I said, that people tend to choose what they consider to be best for themselves.

I prefer the term "enlightened self interest", which has almost nothing in common with classic "selfishness".

I donate heavily to charities of many kinds, because I believe in the benefits they bring to society, and ultimately, to me and my family.  I have no problem giving some of my money to feed and shelter the homeless.  What I don't like is the idea of my money being extracted from me at gunpoint by the government, and given to people.  Even if these are very deserving people, the government robs me of the joy of giving, and robs the receiver of the joy of gratitude.  Furthermore, I cannot vet how the money is used.  The organizations I donate to give a person a chance to get back on their feet, with the ultimate goal of getting them a job and to move out to their own housing.  They will not host a person indefinitely who shows no interest in trying to work.

Even the early Christian church, which in many ways functioned in a socialistic fashion, said "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat", because too many ablebodied people were eating food that was primarily intended for the disabled, the elderly, the widows, and the orphans.

[cryopyre]

Until people get better educated so that they can get candidates through the primaries that are halfway decent choices, we will end up with elections with two bad choices.  I have looked at the books my children studied in high school.  Instead of some great books like "Democracy in America", "1984", "Atlas Shrugged", etc., they had to read junk like "Life of Pi" and a bunch of other very forgettable books.

But 1984 was written by a libertarian socialist 

Also, Atlas Shrugged isn't considered to have much literary merit even among Rand fans. It is purely ideological. My school did have us read The Fountainhead.

[cryopyre]

I do not like the term selfish, it is loaded with a lot of negative connotation; I meant exactly what I said, that people tend to choose what they consider to be best for themselves.

I prefer the term "enlightened self interest", which has almost nothing in common with classic "selfishness".

I donate heavily to charities of many kinds, because I believe in the benefits they bring to society, and ultimately, to me and my family.  I have no problem giving some of my money to feed and shelter the homeless.  What I don't like is the idea of my money being extracted from me at gunpoint by the government, and given to people.  Even if these are very deserving people, the government robs me of the joy of giving, and robs the receiver of the joy of gratitude.  Furthermore, I cannot vet how the money is used.  The organizations I donate to give a person a chance to get back on their feet, with the ultimate goal of getting them a job and to move out to their own housing.  They will not host a person indefinitely who shows no interest in trying to work.

Even the early Christian church, which in many ways functioned in a socialistic fashion, said "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat", because too many ablebodied people were eating food that was primarily intended for the disabled, the elderly, the widows, and the orphans.

But this is not inherently anti-socialist. Perhaps anti-communist depending on your ideology.

[Buster's Uncle]

I feel kinda bad, EM; like we're ganging up on you.  I actually PMed a conservative I know and invited him here specifically to this thread earlier today.

BUncle, if the Democratic party was still the party of "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", I would be a Democrat myself.  But now it embraces dolism and an incredible number of amazingly off the wall ideologies.

This from the party with Ann Coulter in it, (to the extent she’s not a cynical act for the money she makes throwing bombs - I honestly suspect her of that.)

Sorry, but I have a real problem with when Republicans have the gall to say things like “ruined the economy” “discarded the Constitution” and “embraced their lunatic fringe” and are not talking about  Republicans.  It feels like anyone deluded or dishonest enough to say that without first denouncing Bush/Cheney, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc., ought to be struck by lightning for the sheer hypocrisy, or at least get nasty burns from putting out their pants.

You really don’t know what you sound like every time you bring up welfare, do you?

I have no problem with what any number of people of any sexuality do in their bedroom, but I get concerned when l see all of these in your face demonstrations.

As do I. 

If you have no problem with their private behavior, however, how do you feel about the right’s insistence on enforcing their mores on gay marriage?  Are the gays citizens, equal to the rest of us and entitled to the same rights, or not?

When democratic judges protect the publishing rights of pedophiles to tell other pedophiles how to seduce children.

  Assuming this is true, what does the bad decision of one judge have to do with the party?  Have you had the legal reasons for the decision explained by a lawyer?  Would the reason have been the First Amendment, perchance?  The government tried to stop that magazine from publishing the h-bomb plans in 1979, and the First Amendment won the day for the idiots of  The Progressive, a rather more important public concern.  (BTW, I’d bet the house that those plans will get you killed trying, or DC would be vapor long ago, or the spooks would have pragmatically done something illegal to stop it.)  But anyway, you don’t hate the Constitution, do you?

Without defending predators in any way, I tend to feel sorry for the poor perverts; I’d love to see some statistics on the murder/suicide rate for convicted sex offenders.  I have no better ideas, mind, but the idea of punishing someone who’s done his time with eternal humiliation, ostracism and vastly increased risk of assault and murder just sticks in my craw.  There ought to be a better way; this one is rather un-American.

When groups have as their slogan, "we're ...  we're proud, and we're after your children", and such groups are embraced by the Democratic party.

Well sure.  I mean, I have a major problem with all the filth out there that decent people are no longer allowed to avoid.  My mother would like to be able to watch TV without being exposed to so much dirty stuff.

However, this is a cultural problem, not a political one.  The Democratic party embraces a fair shake for everyone, at least in theory, not necessarily the bad behavior that goes at  big-city pride parades.  But alas, tolerance is a messy business, and it’s not practical to separate the  principal of equality from personal standards of public behavior. 

Again, it’s a cultural problem not a political one you raise, and it is unfair to tar the whole party with the acting out of a fringe element.  The leatherboys at a pride parade are a package deal with the principals the parade is about, alas.

Yes, the Republican party has some fringers and nutcases as well, but the Republican platform does not embrace them the way that the Democratic party does.

…

…

…

That turns out not to be the case, to put it politely, unless one takes a literal interpretation of your words.  If you don’t know why your underpants are smoking, I’m not going to tell you.

It’s all about the base assumption of who and who is not a fringer and/or a nutcase.  What do you think of Congresswoman Bachman, BTW?

Until people get better educated so that they can get candidates through the primaries that are halfway decent choices, we will end up with elections with two bad choices. 

Yes.

I have looked at the books my children studied in high school.  Instead of some great books like "Democracy in America", "1984", "Atlas Shrugged", etc., they had to read junk like "Life of Pi" and a bunch of other very forgettable books.  Who chooses this? 

Texas.  Seriously.  Look it up.

Sir, you are confusing ideology with competence, here, and placing blame wrongly.  It was like that in my day, too.  The educational system is deeply borked, and politicians bork it that much deeper every time they try to reform it.  We’ve gotta hire a better class of people, recognize the sort of personalities that gravitate to the profession, and tackle the problem from that end.

You can’t be serious about wanting to inflict Rand on young people, however.  The philosophy of selfishness is absolutely the last thing today’s teenagers need.  And that’s not even her best book, I understand.

Mostly, the educational system and media are controlled by liberals (based on polls of teachers and reporters), who seem to want to dumb down the electorate instead of educating them. 

Sir, you are confusing ideology with competence, here, and placing blame wrongly. 

My personal experience of teachers, and my mother is one, is that they are, in the main, a bunch of nice church ladies, not liberal at all, with mediocre intellects and less imagination/flexibility.  (Which doesn’t describe Mom at all, except the church lady part.)

The last thing any teacher I have ever met or know of  wants is to keep the kiddies ignorant.  It’s just a matter of most teachers being narrow-minded and unable to adapt to the times, or different ways of thinking.  -Or gifted students, if I may say, based on personal experience.

Now, I hear that up north, the unions change everything, but I can’t believe the actual teachers are all that different.  I bet most of them, outside high schools in bad urban neighborhoods, are still bland not-that-bright people who did well in school themselves and decided to stay there.  But I don’t have any trouble imagining that where the unions have power, teachers turn into radicals on labor issues, (and leftists on very little else) which may skew the polls, depending.  I grew up in teachers’ lounges, and the only group I ever saw more prone to lighting a cigarette and bitching about the crapulence of their jobs at any and every opportunity is temps.

My children were taught that slavery was the main issue in the US civil war, that the southern states succession was because of the emancipation of slaves; how dumb is that?!  The emacipation proclamation did not get issued until months after succession.  The succession of the southern states was based on unfair taxation and unconstitutional laws being passed by the northern controlled congress, but you won't find that taught now.

I try not to get into discussions of the Civil War; it only reinforces the Yankees’ wrong-headed preconceptions about us, like that we can’t let it go.  (Which is much like how they can’t let go of Vietnam, a war they aren’t comfortable admitting that we lost.)

Losing a war does things to your head that they won’t ever understand until they make their peace with Vietnam.  I actually think this could improve our national character, as a few of the right failures at the right times can improve the personality of arrogant people - and I think the same applies to arrogant nations.  We’re certainly not arrogant out of insecurity.

However, I will say that it was an infinitely more complex situation than just the slavery issue, with roots that go back all the way beyond 1776 - but that slavery was the popular cause that people at the time tended to think they were fighting over.

Now, MY big problem with what they teach the kids in American history is also the irrational deification of Lincoln.  I think the need for Reconstruction propaganda passed a teeny bit before it was being forced down my throat 40 years ago.

But you have to recognize that, given how many generations in a row have been force-fed those lies, it’s been a long time since it was done out of anything but habit and ignorance.

I do not like the term selfish, it is loaded with a lot of negative connotation; I meant exactly what I said, that people tend to choose what they consider to be best for themselves.

I prefer the term "enlightened self interest", which has almost nothing in common with classic "selfishness".

And yet you want to pollute kids with Randist ideas.  Which is it?

My take is that the conservatives hated social security, hated Medicare, hate anything new and always underestimate the prosperity and capacity of our society to do the decent, compassionate thing.  Are they correct if they point out that there should be sensible limits?  Yes.  Yes, they are.  But not when they claim we can’t afford to toss the unfortunate a bone.  Sir, we are rich.  We are the richest people in history, and few of us look around and realize it.  We are so rich that our poor people are fat, which is something new in human affairs.  But yes, there should be reasonable limits.  I oppose any sales tax increase for the same reason; there’s no end in sight, ever, unless we say “enough”.

I donate heavily to charities of many kinds, because I believe in the benefits they bring to society, and ultimately, to me and my family.  I have no problem giving some of my money to feed and shelter the homeless.  What I don't like is the idea of my money being extracted from me at gunpoint by the government, and given to people.  Even if these are very deserving people, the government robs me of the joy of giving, and robs the receiver of the joy of gratitude.  Furthermore, I cannot vet how the money is used.  The organizations I donate to give a person a chance to get back on their feet, with the ultimate goal of getting them a job and to move out to their own housing.  They will not host a person indefinitely who shows no interest in trying to work.

This is about the best articulation of this principal I’ve ever encountered.

You do realize, however that most people will not chip in nearly so much should things be arranged the way you want?  Then it becomes a social problem, to persuade people to charity, and I’d say a very tough sell, at that.

Even the early Christian church, which in many ways functioned in a socialistic fashion, said "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat", because too many ablebodied people were eating food that was primarily intended for the disabled, the elderly, the widows, and the orphans.

Marx, you know, spoke of Jesus as an early proto-communist.

[Earthmichael]

Have you actually read "Atlas Shrugged"?  Or "Anthem"?  Or "The Fountainhead"?  Rand simply wants people to understand that those who teach an ethical system where others are ENTITLED to your work is just plain wrong, and why.  "Atlas Shrugged" takes unrestricted entitlement to an extreme, to make a point that once you start down the road where ethics are taught that others are entitled to your work, what the end result would inevitably be.  I think it is an excellent cautionary tale that all 18 year olds or older should read.  I can hardly consider you educated if you haven't read this.  By the way, I have read Carl Marx as well, and I have no problem with Rand and Marx being taught side by side.

The problem is, so many people indoctrinate themselves with a single viewpoint, and never read any good books from other viewpoints.  When this happens, you are just taking a default position, rather than one arrived at through your study and reason.  So I have studied many philosophies and religions, just to see where people are coming from, and to figure out what I consider rational and irrational.  (I reject any system that espouses irrationality as a goal, or rejects an objective reality.  Reasoning about objective reality is my fundamental basis for philosophic understanding.)

There are many problems with federal government redistribution of wealth:
1. The federal government is very inefficient at it.  A private organization that handled retirement funds the way the government handles social security would have had the executive offers put in jail.
2. The government does a lousy job in figuring out who needs a hand up, and who is just taking advantage of the system.
3. The government blends a political purpose with the handouts.  In general, they do not want people to get to a point that they get off welfare.  They want to keep a "dolist" voting block that they can bribe with an increase of handouts.  This is why the "war on poverty" has never worked, despite trillions poured into it.
4. The government is much more corrupt than most corporations, simply because the stockholders will kick out corrupt executives very quickly, while voters have much less power to kick out corrupt government officials, even when the officials are caught with a freezer full of illegally obtained cash.

Do I want to see people starve?  Of course not. 

Do I want to see mutigeneration welfare familys?  Definitely not!

There has to be a balance here, between giving a hand up, and taking care of the dolists for life.

And there needs to be a balance for benefits as well.  If the government needs to confiscate 50+% of my income, so be it.  But I at least want my kids to get the same benefits the dolist kids do, instead of being treated like second class citizens!

[Buster's Uncle]

You've given yourself away as a Libertarian.

I think it's a horrible idea to teach young people that there is only wrong and right in the world, and nothing in between.  I had a terrible case of that in my youth without the help of Objectivism, (virtually all teenagers of any dept and thoughtfulness do) it was hard to shake off, and the world is a better place since I grew out of it.  It is really not that simple.

I'm not interested in discussing welfare.

[Earthmichael]

Some degree of socialism CAN work, as long as there are protections in place to deal with freeloaders.

Many indian tribes had a communal cooking pot in the center of the village.  Anyone who hunted or gathered added their contribution to the cooking pot.  However, this was coupled with a strong system of honor.  Those who slacked off lost honor, had reduced opportunity for finding a mate, and could ultimately be banished form the tribe.  Not everything was shared, only the food supply.  Workers could keep other products of their labor, such as living quarters, furs, teeth, weapons, etc.

Isreal kibbutz is also a good example of a workable socialist system.  It was simply a community where everyone made a contribution of some kind to the working of the community.  Again, those who slacked were warned, and eventually kicked out of the kibbutz.  A person was not required to contribute all of their income to the kibbutz, only their fair share of communial expenses.  Thus workers kept an incentive to work hard to gain private wealth after paying communical expenses.

In contrast, the US colonial commonweaths required the contribution of 100% of product of the labors to the communal resource pool.  Hard workers notice neighbors slacking with no penalty, and soon most everyone slacked, resulting in near starvation for the commonwealth.  It was only after a return to people keeping the fruits of their own labor that the colonies thrived.

Which leads me to an important conclusion: the best socialist systems are the ones who have some provisions in place to deal with freeloaders, and allow hard or skilled workers to individually benefit from their extra productivity.

[Earthmichael]

I think it's a horrible idea to teach young people that there is only wrong and right in the world, and nothing in between.  I had a terrible case of that in my youth without the help of Objectivism, (virtually all teenagers of any dept and thoughtfulness do) it was hard to shake off, and the world is a better place since I grew out of it.  It is really not that simple.

Where in the world does this come from?  This is not remotely what I said!  I don't think I even mentioned "wrong and right"!  Nor does Objectivism espouse a system of right or wrong.  It is simply a philosophical basis for reasoning, presuming that there is an actual objective reality that we all share (rejecting the idea that there is no objective reality).  It is a way of helping people frame their own rational worldview based on their own study and reasoning.

I advocate teaching young people a variety of philosophical perspectices, and how to reason, i.e. logic.  Then people can see that there is some wisdom in a variety of viewpoints, and to help understand where others are coming from.  I don't think that young people should be spoon fed humanism and liberalism, without other counterbalancing philosophies being taughts AS WELL.  Then people will have the information and tools to figure out their own worldview, instead of accepting whatever they were indoctrinated with in their education system by default.

[Buster's Uncle]

We're on different planets about the nature of Objectivism, as in, you're contradicting a central tenant, as I understand it, and hear from every Objectivst I've ever read or talked to.

There are simply better ways than Rand to teach young people intellectual and moral self-reliance.

And I assure you that you're overestimating the capacity of most teachers and students alike to comprehend the very concept of more than one way of thinking.

[Earthmichael]

We're on different planets about the nature of Objectivism, as in, you're contradicting a central tenant, as I understand it, and hear from every Objectivst I've ever read or talked to.

From aynrand.org:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

I see no contradiction with this from anything I have said.  By the way, I am personally not an Objectivist, but I do believe it provides a rational basis for studying philosophy, and I am therefore in favor of some study of Rand's fiction.

There are simply better ways than Rand to teach young people intellectual and moral self-reliance.

That is not what the Rand books are about.  Have you actually read any Rand fiction?  If so, which books?

And I assure you that you're overestimating the capacity of most teachers and students alike to comprehend the very concept of more than one way of thinking.

No person can be considered educated who has only be exposed to a single philosophic viewpoint.  I believe that most teachers can indeed comprehend various philosophical viewpoints; if not, get different teachers.  And I am equally confident that the students would benefit from being exposed to a variety of philosophic viewpoints and would be able to understand them.  In any case, it is better than brainwashing them with a single viewpoint.  I would rather have them confused, which will hopefully lead to further study, than to have our youth simply indoctrinated.