Defining Liberalism : A Warning To College Students : Part II

Suggestions For Students And "Modern Liberals"

First let me offer some advice to modern liberals.

I would suggest that the adherents to modern liberalism just drop the “liberalism” from their description entirely and call it what it is, “collectivism”, but that I'm sure would make matters too clear for their convenience. It seems better for their cause to continue muddying the word “liberalism” so they can trick more college students into thinking they are something they're not.

They are not the inheritors of the American revolution, but rather the latest and greatest counter-revolutionaries ever to be identified in human history.   They stand for many of the same things we declared our independence from in 1776 and and tried through the ratification of the Bill Of Rights in 1791 to make certain would not come back to beset us.  As much as the founders may have wished to, they could not find a sure way to prevent people from using lies such as “the greater good” and “social justice” to bring the individual back under the tyranny of the collective.  Instead they left us letters reminding us of how fragile the revolution is and how we must be steadfast in our faithfulness to basic principles.
 
The definition of classical liberalism is that of a good liberalism.  One consistent with what the American Revolution was all about.  Indeed what many self-proclaimed conservatives say they believe in, at least they say, and to whatever extent they are not collectivists they're probably telling the truth.
 
My words of advice to college students is to never trust anyone who is eager to inform or teach you, not even me.  Learn from them as much as you can, but test their words, both in your own mind and against other sources. Control of information is too much power to trust with any one person, so control what you accept and reject, yourself.  Never become passive or deferential. If anyone ever says to you, “who are you to disagree with ...”, answer them, “reason”, for there is nothing rational about simply deferring to an expert who isn't making sense to you.  Maybe you're just not seeing something, but you'll never see it if you pretend you do when you don't.  That's part of why it's said that humility is the beginning of wisdom. It's also entirely possible the expert is wrong or at the very least not being relevant to the actual issue at hand.  Academic experts being found wrong has happened so many times in the last couple decades I'm almost surprised the Ivy League's ratings haven't in some way been downgraded.  Point being their wrong often enough that it's far from silly to challenge them, and failing to challenge them, at least inside your own head, is irresponsible if you are serious about learning and pursuing knowledge.

And as this two part discussion of the word “liberalism” shows, some of them may even try to trick you.  Keep an eye out for social and political agendas, and yes even personal ones. Some of the things taught in history and the various social sciences like psychology, sociology, and education match up far too well with certain agendas to be taken in without suspicion from a critically trained and active mind.

Here are some examples of questions of conclusions in education classes often discouraged that should be asked and that effect most people's lives today.

Do children really learn best in a diverse group?

Could students' learning improve if they were in a classroom of students of only their own gender?

What if students were segregated by learning styles?

What if they were segregated by aptitudes? Would the benefit of the improved learning outweigh the potential image issues caused by using a tracking system like this?

Is socialization a side effect or a goal of public education?

Is socialization only reliably achievable through public education?

If there was a better way to educate children but it lacked opportunities for socialization, would it be worth implementing?

Note now that none of these questions would be so hard to ask if those who claimed to be liberals were liberals in the true classical sense, that is they were truly aligned with the spirit of the American Revolution. An individualist approach as opposed to a collectivist one would emphasize choice over uniformity and would not consider socialization towards diversity to be a goal appropriate for government and as such necessary for public schools. Socialization towards diversity and socialization in general are best left as individual  and private goals, not that of some sort of social engineering. At least that's the way of the revolution, the American one.