There seem to be two philosophical approaches to education. One, most prominently espoused by Gov.
In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President George W. Bush promptly declared that the attacks were motivated by a hatred for “our freedoms” —particularly our freedoms of religion and speech. All of the evidence appears to point to a completely different idea. Terrorists did not attack us on 9/11 because they hated our freedom or were commanded by their religion. They attacked the World Trade Centers in order to get revenge for American actions they perceived to be injustices.
At first glance, net neutrality seems like a great idea. It proclaims to keep the Internet free, equal and void of discrimination. Freedom, equality and anti-discrimination certainly are important American principles, but they are meant to be applied to citizens’ relationship with government, not citizens’ relationship with private businesses. Internet access is not a right, and all of the intricacies and stipulations of the service should be left up to the Internet company and its customers.
As high school seniors search for colleges to apply to, it will be difficult for them to find one that doesn’t have some sort of “general education” or “liberal studies” requirements. The idea that colleges must produce a well-rounded individual by means of mandating breadth in course selection is almost universal. While it would be nice if it was possible to instill knowledge into students by implementing general education requirements, knowledge is something that you have to want to have. After all, it is entirely possible to get through every liberal studies course you take with the grade you want if you memorize enough information and dump it on the exam, or write a good enough essay on a topic you don’t care about. The flaw in mandated liberal education is the idea that forcing students to complete a set of classes will make them acquire and retain a certain set of skills or amount of knowledge.
Arguments over gun control revolve around one of two things: trying to maximize or minimize a certain set of statistics or hoping to establish a specific set of individual rights. Those who attempt to maximize or minimize societal outcomes advance a utilitarian argument; those who advocate for establishing individual rights in relation to gun ownership rely on their own arbitrarily-defined belief system.
Giving private businesses the right to “discriminate” (control who they conduct business with) isn’t about discrimination—it’s about private property rights. Fighting for social justice, equality, and tolerance is a very noble cause, but there comes a point when passing legislation to attempt to make things right actually makes things wrong.
Economic fallacies seem to be ingrained in the minds of many Americans. According to economically illiterate individuals, so-called “greedy capitalists” would pay each of their workers one cent per hour while raking in massive profits unless we have a minimum wage. Additionally, children would totally be working 12 hours a day in coal mines without the presence of child labor laws. Fortunately, none of these horrific myths are true.