Well, no, because many, many things have changed since then. It's entirely possible that some of those things have had good effects and some bad.
But specifically, what I'm asking is whether there's any evidence that it's beneficial to students generally, and not just to the AA admits specifically, to have a higher percentage of black and Hispanic students than would be produced by a race-blind admissions policy.
To elaborate, this has always struck me as something its proponents just assume to be a Very Good Thing, without any real evidence that I'm aware of. Which means that it's an extremely compelling argument, as long as the person you're trying to convince already agrees with you.
Is there any actual research confirming concrete benefits of racial diversity in higher education? Specifically, the presence of large black and Hispanic populations, since you get large Asian populations without AA?
Does anyone else find it deeply, deeply disturbing that radical leftists are the most sympathetic characters in this story? How screwed up does a society have to be for them to come out on top?
We non-leftists have been rolling our eyes at the "Disagreement with Obama is racist" schtick for years. Actually, it predates Obama. The original form was "Disagreement with leftism is racist." Obama was a godsend because he allowed them to use a slightly less crazy-sounding form.
Yes. I've been building my own computers from parts since the late '90s, and installing Windows has always been very easy. As late as 2006, my attempts at installing Linux involved cryptic errors that took hours of research to resolve.
I have a vague memory of reinstalling Windows 3.1 from floppy disks, and I don't recall any particular problems, but that was a long time ago, and I only did it once.
I oppose single-payer health care largely because I'm fairly certain that the government will use its monopsony power to push down drug prices, as just about every other country with socialized health care has done.
Currently the Europeans are free-riding on R&D funded by American consumers. If the US government drives down prices here, this will dramatically reduce the returns to new drug development, and it's very likely that many more people will die due to the fact that the treatments they need won't be available at any price.
For all we know, there may already be a substantial death toll attributable to European price controls, though obviously it's hard to calculate that sort of thing.
I don't think that that's where this is going. I think that the people who advocate this sort of system genuinely think that it's okay for people to mooch off taxpayers indefinitely. If they didn't, they wouldn't want to make it so easy. I just don't understand why.
Let’s allow that to happen by allowing people to create their own economy, work from their own homes or food trucks or lemonade stands or whatever – but let’s also make sure that we’re crafting a human economy that doesn’t allow anyone to fall through the cracks. No pity-charity. No shameful revelations. No stupid corporatist regulations either, designed to squeeze everyone out of the market, into stultifying, soul-sucking wage labor.
Just so we're on the same page, am I correct in understanding that under this system, if someone just doesn't feel like working, he won't have to, because the government will force people who do work to pay all of his living expenses? And that you do not wish for this lifestyle choice to be stigmatized?
All the competitors to Windows, denied access to the PC market, because Microsoft wouldn’t allow the manufacturers to sell PCs with their OS installed.
If there's a market for PCs that don't run Windows, then someone will meet it, even at the cost of sacrificing the opportunity to sell Windows PCs. As PCs are made with interchangeable parts, the barriers to entry are very, very low. There was no reason the market would have been unable to support system builders specializing in Linux systems, if the demand had been there. And there was a producer specializing in Apple systems, namely Apple.
Linux failed to gain market share on the desktop because it was completely unusable to non-experts. For a very long time, the kind of people who ran Linux were the kind of people who built their own systems from parts.
The real question isn't whether you can have freedom without democracy, but whether you can have freedom with democracy. The record suggests that, given the opportunity, people will fairly consistently vote to restrict freedom. The US is only as free as it is because of anti-democratic constitutional restrictions on the power of the government, and these have largely been eroded with the tacit or explicit approval of the electorate.
Voters can generally be counted on not to elect a politician who runs on a platform of literal decimation. Beyond that, there aren't really any guarantees.
Thanks. I don't think your original characterization was quite accurate. She was clearly uncomfortable with the question, but not really in the sense of expressing contempt for the concept of love in general. I suspect that the backstory here was that she was still bitter over the whole Nathaniel Branden kerfuffle.
Love is “…the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.” Love is a price to pay? Has the author of this statement ever experienced love?
What you have to keep in mind here is that Rand didn't have the disdain for commerce that permeates much of our culture. One might even say that she regarded voluntary exchange as a sacrament of sorts. When she says "price" here, she doesn't mean it in in the sense of a cost, but rather in the sense of one thing given in exchange for another. Here's the full sentence:
Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.
This was specifically in response to the idea that people should love indiscriminately.
It's worth noting that Galt didn't actually quit; he emigrated. Granted, he emigrated to an enclave within the US, but it was beyond the reach of the US government due to the fact that they couldn't find it.
A broader definition of "going Galt" could include emigrating to a freer country, seasteading, or establishing and moving to a charter city.
Going through the comments over there at Dr. Helen’s and measuring the levels of entitlement...
By "entitlement," you mean wanting the government to refrain from taking their money and giving it to other people, right? As opposed to people want want the government to take other people's money and give it to them, which is totally cool.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A Man for No Season in Particular”
"No problem!" quoth the Entrepreneur. "I've got it all worked out. Just sign here, on the dotted line."
"
First, a gift of land isn’t going to appeal to people who just want to go on welfare anyway.
"If you can sell the land, isn't that equivalent to welfare?" asked the Accountant.
On “Affirmative Action and Philosophy vs. Reality”
He got like fifteen responses to his comment.
"
Well, no, because many, many things have changed since then. It's entirely possible that some of those things have had good effects and some bad.
But specifically, what I'm asking is whether there's any evidence that it's beneficial to students generally, and not just to the AA admits specifically, to have a higher percentage of black and Hispanic students than would be produced by a race-blind admissions policy.
"
Confirming that suspicion isn't really helping your case.
Also, my kingdom* for an edit button.
*I do not actually have a kingdom.
"
To elaborate, this has always struck me as something its proponents just assume to be a Very Good Thing, without any real evidence that I'm aware of. Which means that it's an extremely compelling argument, as long as the person you're trying to convince already agrees with you.
"
I said actual research, not hand-wavy assertions.
"
Is there any actual research confirming concrete benefits of racial diversity in higher education? Specifically, the presence of large black and Hispanic populations, since you get large Asian populations without AA?
On “Because it’s important to make it so that you can’t root for either side.”
Does anyone else find it deeply, deeply disturbing that radical leftists are the most sympathetic characters in this story? How screwed up does a society have to be for them to come out on top?
On “Are white, anti-Obama liberals motivated by racism?”
We non-leftists have been rolling our eyes at the "Disagreement with Obama is racist" schtick for years. Actually, it predates Obama. The original form was "Disagreement with leftism is racist." Obama was a godsend because he allowed them to use a slightly less crazy-sounding form.
I must admit to a bit of schadenfreude here.
On “Neoliberalism and the Human Economy”
Yes. I've been building my own computers from parts since the late '90s, and installing Windows has always been very easy. As late as 2006, my attempts at installing Linux involved cryptic errors that took hours of research to resolve.
I have a vague memory of reinstalling Windows 3.1 from floppy disks, and I don't recall any particular problems, but that was a long time ago, and I only did it once.
"
Democracy!
"
Great. Let's table universal welfare for now, and take another look at it when we're actually living in a post-scarcity economy.
"
I oppose single-payer health care largely because I'm fairly certain that the government will use its monopsony power to push down drug prices, as just about every other country with socialized health care has done.
Currently the Europeans are free-riding on R&D funded by American consumers. If the US government drives down prices here, this will dramatically reduce the returns to new drug development, and it's very likely that many more people will die due to the fact that the treatments they need won't be available at any price.
For all we know, there may already be a substantial death toll attributable to European price controls, though obviously it's hard to calculate that sort of thing.
"
I don't think that that's where this is going. I think that the people who advocate this sort of system genuinely think that it's okay for people to mooch off taxpayers indefinitely. If they didn't, they wouldn't want to make it so easy. I just don't understand why.
"
Let’s allow that to happen by allowing people to create their own economy, work from their own homes or food trucks or lemonade stands or whatever – but let’s also make sure that we’re crafting a human economy that doesn’t allow anyone to fall through the cracks. No pity-charity. No shameful revelations. No stupid corporatist regulations either, designed to squeeze everyone out of the market, into stultifying, soul-sucking wage labor.
Just so we're on the same page, am I correct in understanding that under this system, if someone just doesn't feel like working, he won't have to, because the government will force people who do work to pay all of his living expenses? And that you do not wish for this lifestyle choice to be stigmatized?
"
All the competitors to Windows, denied access to the PC market, because Microsoft wouldn’t allow the manufacturers to sell PCs with their OS installed.
If there's a market for PCs that don't run Windows, then someone will meet it, even at the cost of sacrificing the opportunity to sell Windows PCs. As PCs are made with interchangeable parts, the barriers to entry are very, very low. There was no reason the market would have been unable to support system builders specializing in Linux systems, if the demand had been there. And there was a producer specializing in Apple systems, namely Apple.
Linux failed to gain market share on the desktop because it was completely unusable to non-experts. For a very long time, the kind of people who ran Linux were the kind of people who built their own systems from parts.
"
Basically, you don't think that the majority should get to rule on things where you disagree with the majority.
"
The real question isn't whether you can have freedom without democracy, but whether you can have freedom with democracy. The record suggests that, given the opportunity, people will fairly consistently vote to restrict freedom. The US is only as free as it is because of anti-democratic constitutional restrictions on the power of the government, and these have largely been eroded with the tacit or explicit approval of the electorate.
Voters can generally be counted on not to elect a politician who runs on a platform of literal decimation. Beyond that, there aren't really any guarantees.
On “Going Valjean”
That wasn't a serious argument. It was a snarky reference to this comment thread. Specifically, the first comment, then this and this.
"
Thanks. I don't think your original characterization was quite accurate. She was clearly uncomfortable with the question, but not really in the sense of expressing contempt for the concept of love in general. I suspect that the backstory here was that she was still bitter over the whole Nathaniel Branden kerfuffle.
Love is “…the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.” Love is a price to pay? Has the author of this statement ever experienced love?
What you have to keep in mind here is that Rand didn't have the disdain for commerce that permeates much of our culture. One might even say that she regarded voluntary exchange as a sacrament of sorts. When she says "price" here, she doesn't mean it in in the sense of a cost, but rather in the sense of one thing given in exchange for another. Here's the full sentence:
Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.
This was specifically in response to the idea that people should love indiscriminately.
"
It's worth noting that Galt didn't actually quit; he emigrated. Granted, he emigrated to an enclave within the US, but it was beyond the reach of the US government due to the fact that they couldn't find it.
A broader definition of "going Galt" could include emigrating to a freer country, seasteading, or establishing and moving to a charter city.
"
Of course, this is completely backwards. Atlas Shrugged was very explicitly a response to the "gimme gimme gimme" philosophy of the left.
"
In her last public appearance, Rand was asked about love. She sneered, and said that her opinions of love could be understood from her novels[*].
*Citation needed.
"
Going through the comments over there at Dr. Helen’s and measuring the levels of entitlement...
By "entitlement," you mean wanting the government to refrain from taking their money and giving it to other people, right? As opposed to people want want the government to take other people's money and give it to them, which is totally cool.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.