[ThisIsOK]

Academia has claimed that they have answers for societal ills, but government seems to be apathetic to academic proposals. Should governments listen to academia instead of special interest and think tanks that have agendas?

[nasxbrtyol]

Academia has claimed that they have answers for societal ills, but government seems to be apathetic to academic proposals. Should governments listen to academia instead of special interest and think tanks that have agendas?

It is all about money.
When money talks, nobody listens to the voice of reason.

[Wmshyrga]

No!

Academia is full of Bureaucracy and Dogma, even worse than politickal bureaucracy.

An academically governed society would have low corruption but high dogmatism. It would also be inept & ineffective to justify war of any kind. A strong military cannot be operated or maintained by an academic society.

[Kthzltje]

No!

Academia is full of Bureaucracy and Dogma, even worse than politickal bureaucracy.

An academically governed society would have low corruption but high dogmatism. It would also be inept & ineffective to justify war of any kind. A strong military cannot be operated or maintained by an academic society.

Huh?

Religion and government are full of dogma. Right vs left comes to mind? Academia is not as dogmatic as special interest. Dogma is often associated with agenda. Academia has no agenda.

[capeAngedlelp]

Why do we need any governement at all, beyond a basic legal system?

[xtrslots]

Why do we need any governement at all, beyond a basic legal system?

Government is to take care of the people, not oppress it. There's good government and bad government.

[Vodonaeva]

A strong military cannot be operated or maintained by an academic society.

That is a good thing...

---------- Post added 2012-07-03 at 15:57 ----------

Government of to take care of the people, not oppress it. There's good government and bad government.

In what ways do we need government to take care of us?
What can they do that we cannot?

[saerensenatljn]

That is a good thing...

---------- Post added 2012-07-03 at 15:57 ----------



In what ways do we need government to take care of us?
What can they do that we cannot?

Government is to take care of people and protect it. Sometimes these deeds can't be fulfilled by individuals.

[Weislenalkata]

Government is to take care of people and protect it. Sometimes these deeds can't be fulfilled by individuals.

You just repeated the same thing again, so I will repeat the question.

In what way do we need the government to take care of us?
What specific things do we need them to do that cannot be done without government?

[mGUuZRyA]

Huh?

Religion and government are full of dogma. Right vs left comes to mind? Academia is not as dogmatic as special interest. Dogma is often associated with agenda. Academia has no agenda.

University professors are Bureaucrats and very dogmatic from my experience. They have agendas based-on philosophical ideologies. Adding politickal motivation to such ideologies can & does have dangerous consequences; it is a good thing they remain separated. Marxism, Communism, National Socialism… all these began as academic ideologies.

Academics are idealistic, not realistic thinkers. Ideologies put into practice can have bad (or good) results. But either way it is risky. If a society needs 'Change' then this maybe a good approach. But a wealthy & successful society should not take great risks; why make big risks if you are already wealthy & successful as a society?

---------- Post added 2012-07-03 at 08:03 ----------

Why do we need any governement at all, beyond a basic legal system?

Because criminals break the rules. And a government is needed to enforce laws. This means: police & military are necessary to prevent theft, rape, murder, etc.

[invasuant]

University professors are Bureaucrats and very dogmatic from my experience. They have agendas based-on philosophical ideologies. Adding politickal motivation to such ideologies can & does have dangerous consequences; it is a good thing they remain separated. Marxism, Communism, National Socialism… all these began as academic ideologies.

Academics are idealistic, not realistic thinkers. Ideologies put into practice can have bad (or good) results. But either way it is risky. If a society needs 'Change' then this maybe a good approach. But a wealthy & successful society should not take great risks; why make big risks if you are already wealthy & successful as a society?

Whereas politicians are all trustworthy people who never lie and never have hidden agendas or become corrupt.

[artofeyyy]

University professors are Bureaucrats and very dogmatic from my experience. They have agendas based-on philosophical ideologies. Adding politickal motivation to such ideologies can & does have dangerous consequences; it is a good thing they remain separated. Marxism, Communism, National Socialism… all these began as academic ideologies.

Academics are idealistic, not realistic thinkers. Ideologies put into practice can have bad (or good) results. But either way it is risky. If a society needs 'Change' then this maybe a good approach. But a wealthy & successful society should not take great risks; why make big risks if you are already wealthy & successful as a society?

Fair enough

However, who are the realistic thinkers? And you do know fascism is ideological also. The Nazis were filled with fascist intellectuals.

BTW, are you for military fascism?

[M1zdL0hh]

Because criminals break the rules. And a government is needed to [i]enforce[i] laws. This means: police & military are necessary to prevent theft, rape, murder, etc.

We don't need government to provide law enforcement and it isn't in our best interests to do so.
Private security firms operate in many areas already. I would rather pay my money to them than live in a police state. If a private firm does something I don't like, I and all their other customers can go elsewhere.

Unfortunately that option isn't available with the police.

[Yartonbler]

Academia has no agenda.

Such a very, very naive thing to say.

For example, many economists have a liberal agenda. Conversely, many sociologists have a left-wing agenda, or this is at least often the implication of the way they view the world. Who do we listen to? This is not to mention that, even within the same field, there are huge divergences between different researchers and schools of thought.

In principle, I agree with the idea that government should listen to academia, simultaneously taking the fundamental principles of biology, psychology, economics and sociology into account and combining them into a comprehensive view of the social world. The problem, as I've already stated, is that these fields often implicitly contradict each other, and that even taken separately none of them offer any unambiguous, clear-cut solutions to social problems. So their interpretation and application necessarily involves explicitly political decisions. Technocracy is nothing more than a myth.

---------- Post added 2012-07-03 at 17:10 ----------

In what ways do we need government to take care of us?
What can they do that we cannot?

Please, the grown-ups are talking. Don't turn this into a retarded GOVERNMENT IS BAD Libertarianism 101 discussion.

[johnstylet]

Please, the grown-ups are talking. Don't turn this into a retarded GOVERNMENT IS BAD Libertarianism 101 discussion.

Maybe you could grow up and answer the question instead of attacking me.

[Xewksghy]

Fair enough

However, who are the realistic thinkers? And you do know fascism is ideological also. The Nazis were filled with fascist intellectuals.

"Thinking" is idealistic by definition. Academia necessarily is quite idealistic at its height. Academics (ie. Professors) do carry heavy biases & dogmas, similar to religious Theocrats. The difference is between "Science" and "God", empirical processes versus faith, belief, and conviction.

Action is realism. It is often a good thing that thinkers do not have power; because ideologies can be very dangerous as previously mentioned.

BTW, are you for military fascism?

I really am not "for or against" one government style over another. Each type of government fits different types of societies & peoples. One government works for one culture, but not another culture. Communism works for the Homogeneous Chinese and Slavic Russians… but not for the Heterogeneous United States. Democracy works for Europeans but not Saudi Arabians, etc.

---------- Post added 2012-07-03 at 08:14 ----------

Whereas politicians are all trustworthy people who never lie and never have hidden agendas or become corrupt.

Everybody is corruptible, implying that Academics are somehow (?) immune to this… is very humorous to me. You must not be familiar with University professors and their habits?? They are not the people I would want to follow… just my "two cents", my opinion on this.

[babopeddy]

"Thinking" is idealistic by definition.

Yes we certainly need less thinking in the world.

Communism works for the Homogeneous Chinese and Slavic Russians I wonder if you think it worked for the tens of millions that starved to death as a result of their communist government or were outright murdered by the government.

[Esmeralfaf]

Such a very, very naive thing to say.

For example, many economists have a liberal agenda. Conversely, many sociologists have a left-wing agenda, or this is at least often the implication of the way they view the world. Who do we listen to? This is not to mention that, even within the same field, there are huge divergences between different researchers and schools of thought.

In principle, I agree with the idea that government should listen to academia, simultaneously taking the fundamental principles of biology, psychology, economics and sociology into account and combining them into a comprehensive view of the social world. The problem, as I've already stated, is that these fields often implicitly contradict each other, and that even taken separately none of them offer any unambiguous, clear-cut solutions to social problems. So their interpretation and application necessarily involves explicitly political decisions. Technocracy is nothing more than a myth.

---------- Post added 2012-07-03 at 17:10 ----------



Please, the grown-ups are talking. Don't turn this into a retarded GOVERNMENT IS BAD Libertarianism 101 discussion.

Academia is not filled with left-wingers. What I find ironic is that you and others alike disdain academia because it's "liberal". This is laughable. Do you happen to know about freshwater economics? Milton Friedman is well regarded among conservatives and libertarians when he was an academic himself. There are tons and tons of conservative academics. George Will, Thomas Sowell come to mind?

[dubballey]

We don't need government to provide law enforcement and it isn't in our best interests to do so.
Private security firms operate in many areas already. I would rather pay my money to them than live in a police state. If a private firm does something I don't like, I and all their other customers can go elsewhere.

Unfortunately that option isn't available with the police.

While I agree with privation of Security, and Libertarian ideals in general… not everybody is born into the middle or upper classes of wealth. The poor, being born poor, are at extreme disadvantages within a Libertarian society. For Libertarian government to work, inheritance and taxation have to become reduced. But very few people are willing to give-up inheritance or regulating it.

Can you imagine having a government be in control of your Final Testament and Will… doling out your life savings, or debt, to your family members or anyone else?

[Gymnfacymoota]

probably not. you can get just as many flakey ideas from academia as you could from the snake oil salesmen poitician types.