: : Is every person that you have ever met qualified for education beyond high school? It's beyond my understanding to propose that everyone is equally qualified for higher level activities such as running a country. It's analogous to saying that all males, given enough exposure to football, has the capacity to be as great a quarter back as Joe Montana. Do you believe that too?
: Ah, biological determinism to the rescue!
oy vey! Even you must agree that biology is a factor. I mean, like, genes?
And what about the determinism that is founded on families and the way they bring up children?
Not only that but the things that a person himself wants to do with his life; what about personal determinism?
Is your solution to brush away everything except the coercive power of the state? The scientific man redux?
: We won't ever know if 'every person' is 'qualified' for education after high school---or not---until 1) high school actually prepares students for continued education; and 2) everyone can afford to attend. Until then, comparisons to Joe Montana are specious and irreverent.
1. High Schools supposedly do that now. Any thoughts on the success of public school teacher's unions in this regard?
2.Public shools are free in America so everyone can attend. Are you suggesting that the money school districts recieve is somehow connected with educational attainment?
3. Are you suggesting that all people are not only potentially qualified for higher education, but that all people ought to have a degree?
: : Is that your goal? That we all run our governments?
: Would you rather just follow orders?
If no one follows orders, how does anything get done? Orders rarely need to be issued in real life. People understand, if leadership skills are used appropriately, what the task is and what needs to be done to get the job done. There is a cooperation that exists at all levels that grants the primacy of the organizations goal. It's division of labor. The painter knows that he cannot design the new wing for the campus administration building.
Is that the same thing as biological determinism?
: : If people are satisfied with the way things are going, in general, what's wrong with that?
: If people are so 'satisfied' with the political process, why then does over half of the country boycott the elections? Voter rejection does not necessarily imply apathy---it might very well signal the not unreasonable assumption that there is no difference between old Coke and new Coke! When people get something other than Coke to vote for, no doubt they would want to make decisions that affect their lives. Especially because it's the vote in the work place that counts, not the vote outside of the work place that makes the biggest difference! What sort of democracy only transpires after work hours?
Boycott?? That's a pretty sloppy use of words. You must have meant to say why don't people care to go to their polling place to vote. The answer is it's none of your business. They had other things to do. Maybe pick up a gallon of milk on the way home.
If they haven't broken a law, mind your own business.
A vote in the work place??? What sort of work place do you work in??? That's hilarious!! The workers I knew, if given a vote, would to a man vote to go home for the day. And vote for increased wages too.
Look, if you don't like the old Coke, and you don't like the new one, why not try some Sprite? or Jolt? or Pepsi? or 7-Up? or Gator Aide? or Snapple? Don't limit yourself to a rigid course of action, that's for Commies.