Topic: Education
Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest in Higher Education As an elderly, former university professor, I am deeply anguished whenever I come across shameful academic writing. Such writing not only exposes the inability of the writer but it exhibits the extent of decline in American university teaching and is a symptom of a decadent civilization. Institutions that employ these writers have abandoned the classical educational ideals of truth, goodness, and beauty for belief, greed, and exploitation. And not only Americans but the whole world is paying a horrid price for it.by John Kozy
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Friday, October 23, 2009
As an elderly, former university professor, I am deeply anguished whenever I come across shameful academic writing. Such writing not only exposes the inability of the writer but it exhibits the extent of decline in American university teaching and is a symptom of a decadent civilization.
I recently came across a piece titled Future Prospects for Economic Liberty which was published by Hillsdale College. The piece's author is Walter Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He writes, "The Founders understood private property as the bulwark of freedom for all Americans, rich and poor alike." Well, perhaps, but not likely. A few founders, some founders, many founders, or all founders? They certainly didn't put any such statement in the Constitution. There is but one instance of the phrase "private property" in the Constitution. It occurs in the Fifth Amendment and reads, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," which clearly allows the government to take private property. As a matter of fact, the Constitution institutionalizes no economic principles as Justice Holmes, dissenting in Lochner vs the People of the State of New York, recognized when he writes, "a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." And although I assume a few poor people own private property, historically the poor were property less and known as slaves or serfs.
Williams also writes, "the Constitution restricts the federal government to certain functions. What are they? The most fundamental one is the protection of citizens' lives. Therefore, the first legitimate function of the government is to provide for national defense against foreign enemies and for protection against criminals here at home." Well what can one make of this claim? Certainly the Constitution's Preamble lists provide for the common defense as one of the things the Constitution was expected to do, but nowhere in the Constitution is there any reference to "saving lives." Defending the nation against foreign enemies isn't a life saver. People die defending nations. The Constitution also doesn't say anything about protecting citizens against criminals, although it does say, again in the Preamble, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. Making specific acts criminal doesn't insure or promote either of these.
Of course, saving lives is a good thing, and if Williams believes that that is a governmental function, he'd better start advocating universal healthcare, safe working environments, higher wages, market regulation, and a host of other programs not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. All of these programs, and many others, save lives.
Williams also writes, "the free market system is threatened today not because of its failure, but because of its success. Capitalism has done so well in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind—disease, pestilence, gross hunger, and poverty. . . ." Well, I know of no disease that has been eliminated. Certainly cures for some exist, and some can be controlled, but I defy him to name a single one that has been eliminated. And "gross hunger and poverty" certainly exist in the America I live in. It has recently been reported that one in six Americans live in poverty and that food stamp assistance currently is at an all-time high of about 36 million.
These claims of Mr. Williams certainly are dumb, but he makes even dumber claims. For instance, "if I offer my local grocer three dollars for a gallon of milk, implicit in the offer is that we will both be winners. The grocer is better off because he values the three dollars more than the milk, and I am better off because I value the milk more than the three dollars." Not only is this statement nonsense, it is based on a gross misuse of English diction. Consumers in grocery stores don't "make offers" to "local grocers." There are places commonly called "farmers markets" where that kind of offer may take place, but not in any grocery stores in the communities I have lived in for more than seventy years. The local grocery stores are massive corporations. How could any consumer make them an offer for a gallon of milk? The managers of these local grocery stores are often even hard to find. How would a checkout clerk respond to an offer to pay so-and-so for a gallon of milk?
But the dumbest claim is this: "Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product." In a sense, but what if the consumer has no alternative? And what about products that don't work as advertised? That's certainly a way of picking a consumer's pocket. Our local Fox television station regularly runs a feature called "deal or dud" during which it tests highly advertised products. I presume that Mr. Williams would be shocked to learn that most are duds. Corporations certainly use such products to pick consumers' pockets.
Mr. Williams is a shameful example of a university professor who has adopted an ideology, parrots it, and has never had an original thought of his own. His references to the Constitution are asinine and his reasoning ability is far weaker than sophomoric. What's worse, however, are the two institutions mentioned above—Hillsdale College and George Mason University and others like them. They can be likened to Mideastern madrasses—pure purveyors of ideology. These institutions have abandoned the classical educational ideals of truth, goodness, and beauty for belief, greed, and exploitation. And not only Americans but the whole world is paying a horrid price for it.
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Kozy only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Kozy is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
it is little known that the founding fathers were highly interested in "profiting" on private property rather than defining it. in fact, many of them, including washington, had little concern for any sense of justice in land. they received direct [free] grants from the "governors" of the colonies and partitioned and made large sums on land they didn't own.
interesting he should mention "criminals here at home", since about 40% of the early settlers were "prisoners" from europe that were enslaved by the elite of the colonists.
That the world is perfect because of Capitalism is a typical claim. that is obviously "correllary" logic. the world has wealth because of man's labor on the land.
the gallon of milk thing is a tired one. if it were true, dictionaries would have to "change" the definition of exchange.
we don't need corporations, corporations need big government.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-10-23 08:08:48
Let's take a look at some of the things you quote Williams saying which you think are "dumb" or "asinine."
Consumers in grocery stores don't "make offers" to "local grocers."
You confuse an "offer" with "dickering." The act of paying for something makes it an offer. It doesn't matter whether the seller has previously set a price or not. For instance, in real estate the seller sets the price, yet the buyer makes the offer. Quibbling over who is actually verbally expressing an offer in a supermarket is just that...quibbling.
That's one score of "dumb" for you.
But the dumbest claim is this: "Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product." In a sense, but what if the consumer has no alternative?
So in other words, you're not criticizing the truth of Williams' statement. You're claiming that if the consumer has no alternative to the corporation's product, the transaction isn't voluntary. Yet, you provide no evidence that your claim has any reality; in other words, you cite no example where the corporation completely monopolizes the market for good "x". Can you give an example of such a monopoly? The fact that you haven't means it's your criticism that's dumb, not Williams' contention.
Score another "dumb" for you.
Mr. Williams is a shameful example of a university professor who has adopted an ideology, parrots it, and has never had an original thought of his own.
How is this different from what you're doing? It's not. Or are you claiming to be omniscient, unbiased, and an advocate of ideas that no one else has ever expressed before?
There's another "dumb" on your side of the score sheet.
What's worse, however, are the two institutions mentioned above—Hillsdale College and George Mason University and others like them. They can be likened to Mideastern madrasses—pure purveyors of ideology.
Hmm... I seem to have missed the part where you let us know the name of the college where you taught. However, I haven't missed the fact that you have your own political ideology to promote in this article.
Another "dumb" for you.
You call him "dumb" and "asinine" and "sophomoric". That last adjective is particularly interesting given that Merriam-Webster defines "sophomoric" as
1 : conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore
So in other words, I think it's fair to say that your characterization of Williams as "sophomoric" is, itself, sophomoric.
Score one more "dumb" on your side.
Let's see, that's five "dumbs" for you. This article seems to me to be a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Sorry, but as a university economics professor myself, I find your own article to be a superficial hatchet job on someone with whom you disagree.
The fact that Adam Smith's 1776 landmark work, in which 'capitalism' as a system was first investigated as an alternative to the existing mercantilist economies in "An Inquiry Into Wealth of Nations" should inform your comments.
The Declaration itself enumerates the charges against the British Crown, with specific complaints against a centralized, imposed economy :
"...For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
"...For imposing taxes on us without our consent
"...He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."
These are not just cavalier political statements: they cut to the heart of the Mercantile Economic system that existed at that time. The free movement of both goods and labor unfettered by crown approval is a novel, capitalist concept to the world at the time this was written.
The Constitution goes even further, and you are remiss in failing to point out important economic provisions. The obvious one, of course, you couldn't avoid:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.."
It is disingenuous to dismiss this as nothing more than stating that government has the right to take private property. The British government has always doen that, so that is not the important clause: the "new thing" is that compensation must be given to the landholder by the government, a right unheard of in Britain before this (and in fact a right summarily denied the Scot Gaels under the Highland Clearances). But the Constitution goes further:
Bill of Rights Amendment 3, which states that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be [link edited for length] in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" advances an ownership right in private property hereforto unknown in Britain. The same can be said of the 4th Amendments Right against Search and Seizure, which, under early court decisions, was roundly understood to include the protection of financial transactions and paperwork.
You apparently also missed the clause , "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State," a clear break from British policies that stifled trade, required the use of Crown-approved shipping magnates, and punished exports of tobacco to countries such as the Netherlands (Britain claimed a monopoly right to Virginia tobacco).
The Constitution's provision that the Federal Government had the right to regulate interstate commerce was a break from the earlier Articles of Confederation, and the rationale was to prevent states from imposing tariffs and embargoes on goods, thus stifling trade.
Anyone with an objective view of history can see that a nation's Constitution is just as much an Economic Document as a Political one, as it establishes the legal framework for economic activity. You may not like the economic view that the Founders had, but to deny that a certain view existed and is built into the Constitution's framework is to exalt personal pique over scholarship.
The two writers above said it all. I just want to register my agreement with Thom and Walt. You are indeed quibbling over word usages, making assumptions about 'choice' and monopolies, and doing the very thing you accuse Professor Williams of doing.
Hillsdale college articulates truth, goodness and beauty as clearly as i have ever seen at any institution. Watch it for yourself: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/286857-1
"The two writers above said it all. I just want to register my agreement with Thom and Walt. You are indeed quibbling over word usages, making assumptions about 'choice' and monopolies, and doing the very thing you accuse Professor Williams of doing."
I like this article a lot. It takes courage to publish on this site and deflate the pet ideology!
One of the biggest problems with trying to get a handle on both macro and micro economics is the misinformation and wrong information thrown around haphazardly by "experts". The term I've heard used often is "the warring schools of economics". The pet ideology/school of economics of this site has just imploded very badly indeed recently. A huge part of why it got the run it did was bad or wrong information.
And Mr. Williams seems to be a source of very bad information indeed.
So do ignore the above negative commentaries and continue the excellent work!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
