Why the ideals of Democracy and Republicanism are antithetical to each other

American Conservatives assert that the United States was founded as a Constitutional Republican and they are 100% correct. Befittingly of its name, the Republican Party aspires to defend the founding principles of this nation by preserving the essential elements of the Republic. One of such elements is the principle of individual rights that they jealously guard from all threats "foreign or domestic". Most people are inclined to see that as a good thing and presume that other admirable political ideals such as democracy can be reconciled with this principle.

The reality is that the United States was not founded as a Democracy, it was founded as a Republic and that is evidenced by the fact that the word "democracy" has not been mentioned in the Constitution. The essential definition of "democracy" is a rule by the people and most people desire to have fulfilling lives characterized by dignity, material comfort and opportunities to actualize their talents. In the process of a achieving a truly democratic society, it is inevitable that the rights of some people will need to be compromised. For example, if one wishes to create a society where all people have equal opportunities to achieve upward mobility, the well off will need to sacrifice some of their rights to maximize their prosperity. While economics is not a zero-sum game and in some scenarios it is possible for the rich and the underprivileged to undertake a collective venture that benefits both sides, that is not always the case. Thus, a compromise of individual rights is simply an inevitable prerequisite for the creation of the commons where as many people as possible are able to advance their interests. Admittedly, this will impose limitations on the degree to which the most capable and resourceful of individuals will be able to advance theirs.

The bottom line is that the ideals of preservation of the individual rights cannot be fully reconciled with the democratic ideals. The two are fundamentally antithetical to one another because one seeks to safeguard the individual rights of all individuals and the other seeks to compromise them in the name of another political objective. The Republican Defenders of individual rights are rightly called conservative because they wish to preserve the foundational principles of this country. By contrast, their opponents who wish to undermine them are called progressive because they have abandoned the founding principles in favor of other political ideals.

Although it is impossible to be fully committed to Republicanism and Democracy, we must be very wary of the tendency to fully embrace one at the complete exclusion of another. An excessive commitment to democracy can erode individual rights to the point where a state of totalitarian communism will ensue. Conversely, an intransigent adherence to the Republican form of government that guards individual rights at all cost will invariably lead to social stratification where only the most fortunate and the most talented can find fulfillment. It is essentially impossible for the two ideologies to be in perfect harmony with one another and all societies will unavoidably be more committed to one than to the other. Thus, a humane and a free society requires not a bipartisan balance between Republican and Democratic ideals, but a constant conflict between the two.

Vilification of the poor is our sacred duty!

Demonizing the poor is not merely a Republican strategy of aligning the middle class with the financial elites, it is a meme that has been sanctified by the Church since the 19th century. This phenomenon is known as the "Protestant Ethic" which was founded on the Calvinist principle of predestination which held that all people were selected by God either for salvation or eternal perdition. According to scripture, God's presence in ones life manifests in the fruits of the spirit and industriousness is one of them. Because it was also believed that affluence was solely a result of hard-work, the leaders of the religious establishment were inclined to presume that the rich were saved by definition. By contrast, poverty appeared to be solely a result of indolence and the poor were presumed to have been condemned to hell.

In light of the premise that no-one could override God's will, the secular and the religious elites concluded that it was pointless to attempt to alleviate poverty. After all, they are poor just because they are lazy and they are lazy because God made them that way and no-one could change that, so no-one can stop them from being poor! Who could possibly argue with that!? Besides, colluding with the industrialists was a far more lucrative venture than abiding by Christ's dictum of a "rich man is just as likely to enter heaven as a camel is to go through the eye of a needle".

Since then, the religious establishment has been a foremost ally of the financial elites who were granted a moral justification to renege on their responsibilities to the poor. In return, the Church received ample financial support and procured a large number of lucrative followers who had little interest in being sincere Christians. Within a century, religion emerged as a multimillion dollar business and the net-worth of its best practitioners exceeded that of many Wall-Street speculators. Virtually any person with a conscience would find this enormous hypocrisy daunting, if not altogether unbearable. That is why a significant percentage of preachers have lost their faith but the financial incentives compel them to preserve their stature as religious leaders.

Why Pope Francis sticks out like a sore thumb in Vatican

Although Christianity as we know it today was a marginalized sect for centuries after Christ's death, Emperor Constantine soon turned it into the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire. For the ensuing centuries, the secular and the religious authorities formed steadfast alliances that have endured to this day. Despite that the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State is enforced in Western Europe and North America, Christianity remains a religion of the powerful and the privileged. The clerical authorities of most European countries enjoyed lifestyles of material comfort and often required the financial support of the secular elites.

Naturally, the Catholic Church seized the opportunity to turn its religious institution into a burgeoning enterprises. They have achieved considerable success by engaging in the practice of the sales of the indulgences. The ordinary Church members were led to believe that they could shorten their stay in Purgatory by making munificent donations to their religious leaders. Despite the Protestant Reformation, the American churches began engaging in similar practice. In a book that is now known as a classic of sociology, Max Weber explained how the elites have used Christianity to renege on their responsibilities to the poor.



The Protestant Ethic that Max Weber described was founded on the Calvinist principle of predestination which held that all people were selected by God either for salvation or eternal perdition. According to scripture, God's presence in ones life manifests in the fruits of the spirit and industriousness is one of them. Because it was also believed that affluence was solely a result of hard-work, the leaders of the religious establishment were inclined to presume that the rich were saved by definition. By contrast, poverty appeared to be solely a result of indolence and the poor were presumed to have been condemned to hell. In light of the premise that no-one could override God's will, the secular and the religious elites concluded that it was pointless to attempt to alleviate poverty. After all, they are poor just because they are lazy and they are lazy because God made them that way and no-one could change that, so no-one can stop them from being poor! Who could possibly argue with that!? Besides, colluding with the industrialists was a far more lucrative venture than abiding by Christ's dictum of a "rich man is just as likely to enter heaven as a camel is to go through the eye of a needle".

Conversely, the Latin American clergymen were much less fortunate because they were not able to procure the blessings of the financial elites. Naturally, they sympathized with the underprivileged and their concern for the underclass was codified in the tenets of Liberation Theology. The differences between the point of view of Christianity as interpreted by the South American religious establishment and the European are glaring: that is the reason why Pope Francis sticks out like a sore thumb in Vatican. To protect their alliances with the secular elites, the European and American Christian leaders have denounced him as a communist and inveighed Liberation Theology as heretical. Whether you support or decry the Pope's efforts, it is undeniable that his teachings are founded on one fundamentally Christian insight: followers of Christ must display compassion for their fellow human beings by fighting poverty.

This notion flies in the face of the neo-liberal dogma of unfettered free-markets. While countries with considerable labor-power such as India and China are able to benefit from globalization, that does not hold true for most of the underdeveloped nations. According to Paul Collier's "Bottom Billion", the poorest nations on this planet simply lack the fundamental resources needed to take advantage of the opportunities the international markets offer. There is no reason to expect Chad and Niger to compete with the economies of developed nations when half of their population can barely avoid slow death due to starvation and malaria. Jeffrey Sachs put it well, regardless of how many mosquito nets you try to sell them, no progress will be achieved in eradicating extreme poverty through market solutions: markets do things for people that have something and there is no sense in trying to sell things to people who have nothing. Our millionaire televangelists have no concept of what it means to have nothing and that is why they are simply incapable of understanding the Pope's point of view.

Education and the political economy of merit

Education and the Political Economy of Merit

“The schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way, that he simple cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will”. Johann Fichte

The value of education in the Western society

Most residents of North America and Western Europe highly value education and want to be seen by others as educated.  Education is commonly associated with the ability to learn efficiently, to make judicious moral judgments and to act as a responsible citizen. It is merely conventional wisdom that a highly educated work-force promotes political stability, makes the citizenry more likely to enjoy a high quality of life and even reap the joys of the life of the mind. Although these characteristics of education are often used in conjunction with one another, they can be separated from each other. It is certainly possible for an intellectually gifted person to excel academically and fail to enjoy a high quality of life. Indeed, exceptionally gifted academics do not always lead more fulfilling lives than individuals who are intellectually inferior to them. The eminent 20^th century scientist Nikola Tesla struggled to form rewarding interpersonal relationships and died in abject poverty. Albert Einstein was believed to have had the Asperger’s personality that prevented him from excelling at even the simplest tasks of life such as safely crossing the street. The pioneers of the two most prominent schools of thought in Moral Philosophy, Utilitarianism and Deontology; Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant respectively, faced similar challenges in everyday life. That is not to say that intellectual giftedness predisposes one to developing an Asperger’s syndrome or facing extraordinary difficulties with other walks of life, but there is an important difference between academic accomplishment and success in the less intellectual activities.

One may dismiss this assertion by claiming that the intellectually gifted individuals have a much higher general intelligence than the average person and they can use it to excel in any activity of their choice. In other words, Albert Einstein did not find happiness in all aspects of his life simply because he was an impractical man: had he focused less on physics and more on activities that he struggled with, he would have become a much better balanced individual.  This assertion romanticizes the concept of general intelligence by treating it as an elixir to all of life’s dilemmas. At best, a superior intellect enables the individual to solve complex problems in scenarios where their premises and fundamental facts are readily available or can be discovered with further inquiry. However, in most activities of life, true knowledge and competence are cultivated not through intellectual realizations, but through a combination of experience and thoughtful reflection upon it. Albert Einstein was very well aware of this distinction and prudently declined the appointment to become the second president of Israel with the explanation that he was too naïve for politics.  The concept of naiveté aptly illustrates the crucial distinction between intellectual and practical competence showing that even the most intellectually gifted of individuals can lack the experiences necessary for success in practical endeavors. 

This notion has been expounded upon by an eminent contemporary psychologist Robert Steinberg who revised the traditional intelligence test by introducing the criteria of practical and creative intelligence. His findings have shown that individuals who perform exceptionally well on the analytical portion of the test and achieve results on traditional IQ tests that indicate their superior intelligence that of an average person often receive much lower scores on the other two sections of the assessment. Moreover, college graduates whose IQ scores are slightly above average generally enjoy greater professional success than their peers with lower scores, but that is not true for students who receive exceptionally high IQ scores. Chris Lagnan, the man who achieved the highest score in the history of IQ tests works as a bartender.  Considerable controversy surrounds the question of whether or not Lagnan can be regarded as the paragon of intellectual supremacy because it is not certain that IQ tests accurately evaluate one’s intellectual ability. As evidenced in the famous 1996 American Psychological Publication “Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns”, IQ tests tend to carry heavy cultural biases and can often be manipulated by experienced test-takers. 

Nonetheless, there is a very strong correlation between success in academic courses and IQ tests because both activities require similar skills such as test-taking, solving problems in a way that is commonly taught in schools across the Western world and solving abstract problems without an immediate practical purpose. Students from other cultural backgrounds often receive lower scores than Caucasians in part because they are less familiar with the cultural elements of the IQ test, but with appropriate guidance, they can often be trained to excel on these assessments.  For example, one recent APA study featured two groups of African-American students where one was instructed that intelligence is determined solely by natural talent and the other that it could be increased through diligent practice. In stark contrast to conventional wisdom, the students in the latter group have not only outperformed their peers from the other group, but also displayed a significant improvement in their grades and other standardized tests. 

From the standpoint of Steinberg’s tripartite conception of intelligence, one group of students displayed a higher analytical intelligence than the other. Yet it is far from obvious that this is the case because the students who were told that intelligence is not determined by natural ability gained superior results not because they were more gifted than members of the other group, but because they were more confident in their abilities and better motivated to perform well.  One may argue that with the assistance of their instructors who participated in the study, they have utilized their practical intelligence in order to find the motivation to outperform their peers from the other group. In the process of this experiment, they were not taught the analytical skills needed to achieve such a performance and the majority of academic courses focus primarily on the cultivation of analytical rather than practical skills. Very few instructors actively counsel and mentor their students on how to perform at their peak capacity. The implication of this study is obvious: success on IQ tests, standardized tests, academic courses and other activities that bear the hallmark of one’s success in the system of education.  It is evident that individuals who excel at these undertakings do so not only because they are intellectually gifted but also because they tend to be well-motivated, organized and confident in their abilities. In fact, it is possible for an individual who is not intellectually gifted to possess all three of the aforementioned qualities and achieve significant academic success because of that. On this basis, one may conjecture that it is the practical skills that the students have cultivated outside of the classroom that enable them to perform well academically and professionally, not the analytical skills learned in the classroom. 

Clearly, success in the schooling system is a result of a broad range of disparate factors that are only tangentially related to each other.  That leaves one with a curious question regarding why conventional wisdom dictates that academic success is predominantly a result of intellectual ability, if not inborn talent. A superficial answer to this question would place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the eugenicists, craniologists and the scientific racists who developed culturally biased IQ tests and insisted on deporting thousands of low-scoring Jewish immigrants to a certain death in Nazi Germany. The reality of the situation is far more complex because the conception of intelligence as singular, monolithic, homogenous and ubiquitously generalized is deeply embedded in the annals of the Western civilization. Alfred North Whitehead famously said that all of Western philosophy consists of footnotes of Plato and indeed, the first conception of intelligence as a generalized phenomenon can be traced to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and the Theory of the Philosopher Kings. 

In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato argued that all knowledge is abstract by definition and can only be acquired through intellectual realization. In other words, the ultimate reality of the universe resided in another realm known as the Heaven of Ideas that could only be perceived through incisive analytical reasoning, intuitive insight and ponderous contemplation of complexities. By contrast, experience with the material world played no role in the acquisition of knowledge because the world of tangible phenomenon or the world as we know it constitutes a distortion of the ultimate reality. For example, the Heaven of Ideas contains a perfect form of a chair and the visible chair is nothing more than a reflection of that idea. The same also holds true for the more recondite concepts such as justice, truth or political order and because of that, ordinary people who only experience the world as we know it are not qualified to govern. On that basis, Plato rejected democracy in favor of an enlightened dictatorship operated by Philosopher Kings or individuals who are sufficiently insightful to understand the nature of the political order and serve social justice. An obvious challenge that one may mount against Plato’s argument is that understanding what social justice is and promoting it are two different tasks. 

It is possible for an individual to have an impeccable understanding of what a just regime entails and give into the temptation to serve one’s own interests as opposed to that of the public good.  In light of this premise, an eminent 20^th century Political Philosopher Karl Popper charged Plato with being the principal enemy of the Open Society who authored the doctrines that were used to justify totalitarian regimes from Nero and Constantine to Mao Ze Dong, Stalin and Hitler. There is a significant parallel between despotism that the Philosopher King doctrine leads to in the government and the trend of “mis-education” that it often entails in the system of education. When the agenda of schools is heavily influenced by the interests of powerful parties who presume to know what is in the best interest of the students, the process of education often takes place in a manner that serves the interests of these parties rather than the students and society by and large. The doctrine of the Philosopher Kings often serves as the underlying justification of such regimes because it implies that individuals who are not members of these powerful parties do not understand the true “Idea” of how education should be and must be reduced to passive observers of or obedient participants in the system. In that scenario, individuals are “schooled” or indoctrinated rather than educated by the system. 

Remarkably, the majority of students are not dissatisfied with their university experiences and nation-wide surveys have shown that over 80% of high-school graduates desire to matriculate at a university. Upon acquisition of their Bachelor’s degree, over 85% of students report being mostly satisfied or completely satisfied with their university experience. Such surveys have also shown that most students are more likely to admire pop-culture celebrities rather than scholars of stupendous intellect and do not believe that they must be intellectually gifted in order to excel in life. If most students were asked if they would rather be more like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Albert Einstein, they would select Arnold with little hesitation. Moreover, most would strongly agree with Albert Einstein’s claim that he was too naïve to enter politics implicitly rejecting the Philosopher King thesis that intellectual ability makes one competent in all walks of life. Echoing Mark Twain’s dictum of “do not let schooling get in the way of your education”, most students acquire higher education for practical rather than the intellectual reasons. 

When asked to justify their position, most students would likely maintain that true education takes place outside of the classroom in extracurricular activities. For example, by attending Harvard or Yale, one may develop considerable social capital that would empower them to gain the connections needed to enter the highest echelons of our society’s socio-economic hierarchy. Even the students of the less prestigious schools can greatly improve their interpersonal communication skills that would dramatically increase their chances of finding lucrative work. Nonetheless, it is also undeniable that because of the rampant grade inflation that plagues the modern universities, the precipitously declining academic standards in the curricula of the courses across the nation and oversized classrooms, many universities fail to provide students with opportunities to obtain these practical skills. This leads one to wonder if the students are truly getting the “true education” in the practical sense of the term that they desire it in or if they are simply acquiring a degree because that increases their chances of finding more lucrative work, even if it does not endow them with any skills that are worth cultivating.

Distinction between schooling and education

It is a fundamental fact of the 21^st century job-market that individuals holding a Bachelor’s degree are more likely to find lucrative work than their peers who do not. For many, obtaining advanced academic credentials in a marketable occupation is the first step to launching a rewarding career. Most employers who offer highly prestigious jobs prefer applicants who hold a university degree, even when they struggle to justify their bias. When asked to provide an explanatory rationale for this point of view, managers and human-resource professionals often claim that education is a good thing in and of itself. In other words, a highly educated person is a better worker than the less educated by definition. Clearly, such arbitrary out assertions cannot withstand critical scrutiny and one is compelled to inquire what qualities underscore the superiority of educated employees to the less educated. When pressed with such questions, they tend to maintain that when an individual finishes his or her Bachelor’s Degree, it is safe to assume that they are perseverant, diligent and sufficiently intelligent to understand abstract concepts. Yet, even such assertions prove to be untenable when confronted with further inquiries as experienced Human Resource professionals will attest that there is no shortage of incompetent employees with impeccable academic credentials in virtually all professional occupations. 

Nonetheless, one can make the generalization that on average, the highly educated workers tend to be more capable and better suited for demanding jobs of the contemporary market-oriented economy than their less well-educated peers. While that may be true, it is difficult to estimate the extent to which acquisition of further schooling empowers an individual to become a better employee. For example, it would almost certainly be an error to claim that if all book-keepers of a small business were to be required to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in order to retain their jobs, they would become significantly more productive. Clearly, the book-keepers would be able to acquire job-related competencies by attending classes that are directly related to their vocation such as accounting, finance, applied economics and business mathematics. Despite that in the process of acquiring their academic credentials, the book-keepers would be very likely to complete many classes that are irrelevant or only tangentially pertinent to their field of specialization; it is likely that they would learn skills that will prove to be valuable in the work-place. Not only will the book-keepers learn the technical skills required in the modern métier of Accounting, they will also increase their capacity to understand complex scenarios in the world of business, rigorously analyze them and develop practical solutions to problems that they are likely to encounter in their field. One may even go so far as to argue that it is much more important for modern accountants to be college-educated because the world of business is becoming increasingly complex in light of globalization, introduction of complex technologies to the market and emergence of transnational corporations that engage in complex financial transactions. Although many book-keepers could greatly benefit from formal education, it would be an error that all of them would reap such benefits by obtaining conventional schooling. It is quite possible that they will attend an academic institution with oversized classrooms, inexperienced instructors and highly relaxed academic requirements.  Despite that, it can be safely assumed that even the low-quality academic institutions that mostly school rather than educate students will provide them with some useful education that could be of practical value. 

 By the same token, a similar claim can be made with respect to the need for engineers to acquire a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree and in some cases, supplement it with an advanced or a professional degree. It is also true that practitioners of other highly demanding and important professions such as law, medicine, education and counseling could greatly benefit from formal education. In the past, it was possible for specialists of these careers to gain considerable competence in these occupations through informal training such as apprenticeships or collaboration with experienced professionals in their field. However, the challenges modern physicians, engineers and attorneys face are significantly more complex than those of their predecessors from the foregoing generation. Therefore, one may mount a compelling argument that the dramatic changes that the market has undergone justifies the fact that professionals of these disciplines are required to supplement their skills with  systematic training that takes place in academic settings. 

The fact that the practitioners of the aforementioned important professions are committed to important occupations obscures that most students do not find employment in fields that they have specialized in as students. It is a well-documented fact that most students change their majors at least twice before obtaining their Bachelor’s degree. Moreover, once making their final decision regarding the major that they intend to obtain their academic credentials in, the majority of students do not find work in their field of academic specialization. While it is credible that students of accounting, engineering, marketing or journalism will enter the corresponding careers in these disciplines, only a small percentage of students will select such majors. Similarly, most students will not pursue graduate level education in medicine, law, education; counseling or acquire formal academic training in disciplines that would serve as the foundation of their careers in those fields of specialization. Recent publications of the Federal Reserve Bank study revealed that as few as 27% of college graduates work jobs that are related to their college degree and as few as 36% are employed in a line of work where a college degree is required. The implication of these findings is clear, one must not obtain a college degree in order to excel at most lines of work and this premise is well-supported by the fact that many of the jobs held by college graduates today were occupied by high-school graduates in the 1970s. Although one clearly does not need to have a college degree in order to be an effective sales-associate or an administrative assistant, employers fielding these tend to be highly biased in favor of college-graduates. Moreover, Human Resource professionals and scholars have often asserted that new college graduates tend to be deficient in their business communication skills and struggle to effectively collaborate with their peers. On this basis, it is asserted that colleges simply are not doing enough to prepare students for the world of work because they appear to be merely schooled or processed through the curriculum as opposed to genuinely educated. 

In light of these observations, one is compelled to question the rationality of the employers’ preference for applicants who have obtained a university degree. It is possible that the prospective employees who have not obtained a degree spent the previous four years of their lives cultivating the skills needed for success at the work-place that the college graduates appear to lack. Indeed, one may argue that one of the main reasons why college graduates fail to communicate effectively or work in teams is that the university environment does not provide them with sufficient exposure to activities where they may cultivate such skills. On a similar note, the work-place often provides employees with ample opportunities to enhance their communication and collaboration skills. Despite the shortcomings of recent graduates, the interests of the government and the transnational corporations are well-served by the decision to employ as many college educated individuals as possible. By definition, genuinely educated individuals excel at critical thinking, tend to be creative and desire to fight for the moral values they believe in. By contrast, the merely schooled individuals not only lack such qualities, but they may also be more pliable to political manipulation and economic exploitation.   

The role of schooling in the Western society

            As conceived of by the thinkers whose ideas created the foundation of the ethos known as the tradition of the Enlightenment, education must cultivate the student’s capacity to display intellectual autonomy. John Stuart Mill famously argued that upon becoming well-educated, the individual gains the ability to make effective judgments about aesthetic and social phenomena.  On this basis, he or she will have the sufficient intellectual ability to make decisions about complex moral issues and contribute to the democratic process of serving social justice. John Locke, a proponent of the political doctrine of classical liberalism who is widely regarded as a powerful influence upon the Founding Fathers of the United States claimed that a liberal society must be supported by a well-educated citizenry capable of independent thought.  The Founding Fathers of the United States embraced Locke’s ideas and ensured that the students not only learned the value of discipline at the academic institutions, but also underwent rigorous intellectual training that heavily emphasized independent analytical reasoning. Whether or not the schools of the early United States succeeded in this undertaking is open to debate, but it is undeniable that the academic institutions were truly committed to genuinely educating rather than merely schooling their students. The rationale given for their decision to do so was fully consistent with Locke’s injunction that a liberal state must be supported by the genuinely educated citizens who participated in the political arena. However, it was not the intention of the elites of the early American society to enable all individuals to become active participants in the nation’s political activities as only white men who owned land were allowed to vote. On that basis, education was a privilege that only the elites could afford rather than a service available to all citizens.

            In 1837, Senator Horace Mann aspired to change that by forming the first board of education in Massachusetts. It was his intention to make education available to all citizens, yet he fully understood the implications of this decision: it could empower the ordinary citizen to play an active role in the political milieu and challenge the interests of the privileged class. To avoid this outcome, he refrained from implementing the Liberal model of education in the public schools and traveled to Prussia where students were well-known for their unquestioned obedience to authority, discipline and fierce loyalty to their state. The Prussian system of education was founded in the aftermath of the nation’s heavy defeat by Napoleon where it was concluded that the defeat could have been avoided had the soldiers been fully devoted to the cause of the state rather than their selfish interests. Mann noticed that there was a strong line of continuity between the students’ obedience to their future employers, the state and the elites of the Prussian society. 

“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking and acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects entirely without the need of armies or policemen” (Johann Fichte, addresses to the German Nation).   

            As the eminent proponent of the Prussian system of indoctrination explained, in contrast to the Liberal system of education, it should prevent students from thinking independently rather than encourage them to do so. Such an act of prevention must take place simply because it is impossible to coerce individuals to behave in a manner that is in the best interest of the elites through an exercise of brute force. Instead, it would be far more efficient to teach them to unconditionally obey authority under all circumstances. Fichte’s conception of education is not new and can be traced to Plato whom many historians regard as the founder of the general theoretical framework of totalitarian political systems.

“The strongest principle is that everybody, whether they are male or female, should have a leader. Likewise, no one should get into the habit of doing anything at all on his own initiative—either in earnest or in jest. Both in war and during time of peace, he should respect his leader and follow him faithfully. He should look up to his leader and follow his guidance even in smallest matters. For example, he should get up, move around, wash, and have his meals…only at such times when he is ordered to do so. In other words, he should get into the habit, by a long process of training, of never even dreaming of acting independently, and thus becoming utterly incapable of such action. In this way, the life is spent in total community. There is no law, and there will never be one that is above this. It is the most effective way of achieving salvation and victory in war. And in peacetime, and from the earliest childhood this should remain the highest law—the need to rule and be ruled by others. All trace of independence and anarchist spirit must be completely eradicated from the life of all men, and even the wild beasts which are kept by these men.” (Plato, the Laws, 942 a-f).

            Plato’s doctrine holds not only that students should be prevented from thinking for themselves, but that it is a fundamental principle of all political order that everyone should have a leader who will dictate how every aspect of their life is to be lived. One may argue that it would be a mistake to claim that the system of education in the United States is based on Plato’s model, but the similarities between Fichte’s Prussian Model that the American system of education was founded on is remarkably similar to Plato’s general political vision. Consistently with the general criticism of his Philosopher King thesis that there is an important difference between knowing what justice requires and serving it, the system of schooling indoctrinates rather than educates its students. Also consistently with the criticism of Plato’s theoretical framework that intellectual achievement does not lead one to be competent in all walks of life, it is questionable that even a genuinely educative academic environment would enable students to have the practical skills needed in their work-related activities after graduation. As it will be evinced in the interviews conducted in the ensuing chapters, most students who have used the academic ghost-writing services report that the academic work they are assigned is scarcely relevant to the field of work they expect to enter. The descriptions of academic assignments that most students commission the ghost-writers to complete seldom require an exercise of independent or creative thought and can be successfully completed through a simple process of following instructions that even the least intellectual gifted of students can complete on their own endeavor.

The culmination of the schooling tradition and the emergence of the degree mill

            It is unmistakable that Plato’s conception of intelligence played a key role in shaping the foundation of the Prussian system of education that was implemented in the United States towards the middle of the 19^th century. Nonetheless, there is an important element of Plato’s theory of knowledge that is missing in the modern system: much like knowledge of truth, justice and political order, merit is an abstract concept that belongs in the Heaven of Ideas. Accordingly, one can become meritorious through an exercise of natural talent, diligent practice and fierce commitment to one’s intellectual activities. By contrast, in the modern system of education merit can be bought and sold in a manner similar to the sales of the indulgences in the Catholic Church prior to the Protestant Reformation. Rampant grade inflation and proliferation of for-profit schools make academic success possible even for students with only tepid commitments to their education and minimal natural talent. In fact, there is a number of for profit schools that accept all applicants with a GED and require academic advisers to enroll as many students as possible. These institutions also employ telemarketers who are also required to entice a certain number of students to enroll and salespeople who fail to meet their quotas are promptly terminated. The academic standards employed at these organizations are deplorably low and their graduates have lower chances of finding lucrative employment than their peers who enrolled at the traditional four year institutions.  

“If colleges miseducate their students, the nation will eventually suffer the consequences. If they can do a better job of helping their students communicate with greater precision  and style, think more clearly, analyze more rigorously, become more ethically discerning, be more knowledgeable in active civic affairs, society will be much the better for it.” (Derek Bok,  Our Underachieving colleges).

            For those who believe that the system of education should empower students to become responsible and intellectually autonomous citizens, this is a matter of grave concern. As the former Dean of Harvard University aptly noted, if schools continue to miseducate their students, the nation will suffer the consequences accordingly. Although it would be convenient for the Chief Executives of many for-profit schools, leaders of transnational corporations, government officials and members of other privileged parties benefitting from the status-quo to exculpate the academic institution from the charge of miseducating the students by placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the students who use the academic ghost-writing services, such arguments cannot endure rigors of critical examination. It is a well-documented fact that the trends of grade inflation and lowering of academic standards existed long before academic-ghostwriting emerged as a highly lucrative online enterprise. The argument exculpating the academic institutions and inculpating the students would have been plausible in the event where only a small number of students cheated. However, most academic ghost-writers seldom run out of work and as it will be shown in this book, it is the abundance of cheating students that enables the writers to thrive.

 Contemporary bio-economist Phillip Zak has shown that all human beings have a natural tendency to be rule-abiding and live consistently with the norms of society. Although all societies will have deviant citizens, only collapsing societies with long histories of exploiting their citizens face massive disobedience. Anyone who has lived through the early decades of a unified Italy or the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union will attest that law-abiding citizens are hard to come by in disintegrating societies. John Locke argued that all political legitimacy stems from the support of the people or no institution of power can expect to be obeyed without behaving in a manner that its constituents would regard as worthy of their respect. Had the academic institutions truly educated the public and limited access to courses only to the most talented and devoted of students, it is almost certain that academic ghost-writing would be much less prevalent.

The Devitation of Modern Capitalism from Its Origin

When you hear a politician blather about preserving our "dynamic free-market" economy, what exactly do you think he is blustering about? Do you imagine that he is talking about eliminating "government regulations" that prevent businesses from growing? Indeed, in today's political discourse, a "free-market" means little more than an unregulated market. In that case, would Somalia and cartel dominated northern Mexico pass for free-market economies?

 Modern American politicians generally shy away from serious discussions of macro-economic topics and when confronted with this question, they'd find a way to provide a well-polished, but an intellectually vacuous answer.  To be sure, Adam Smith's original conception of the free-market sharply differs from anything an average voter understands it to mean. 

It is impossible to provide a full account of Smith's comprehensive definition of the free-market in such a short post, but perfect competition was its essential component. Part of his definition of the free-market held that no merchant should be able to coerce his competitors or customers by withdrawing from the market. That is, in a true free-market economy, when a merchant leaves the market, his customers would be free to purchase goods or services from his competitors.

 By the same token, he would not be in the position to raise prices far beyond what the consumers are willing to pay because they would have the option of buying from his competitors. However, the forces of the  market are disrupted when one enterprise becomes sufficiently powerful to eliminate adversaries and coerce consumers into paying higher prices: it is here where the government must intervene to preserve the free-market economy.

In stark contrast to Adam Smith's prescriptions, far from preserving the freedom of the market, the government colludes with the most powerful industries in this country. Recently, Congress passed a bill at three in the morning that prevented the Federal government from negotiating prices of prescribed medications with the pharmaceutical companies. As evidenced in the report that was originally aired on the 60 Minutes show, this event took place at that hour because the pharmaceutical lobbyists did not want the average viewer to see this odious event on C-Span in broad daylight. Congresspeople who opposed the bill have been coerced into subordination and its leading supporters shortly obtained jobs with the pharmaceutical companies.

Other proponents of the legislation were pharmaceutical lobbyists and those who would shortly join their ranks. For example, Republican Congressman Billy Tauzin was commended by George W. Bush for the "great work" he has done in passing the bill. In the 60 minutes interview, Tauzin asserted that the pharmaceutical lobbyists always get what they want in the political arena because they "stand for the right things". He clarified his point by insisting that the recent bill that dramatically increased the prices of pharmaceutical drugs was good for the patients whom the pharmaceutical companies represented.

The reality of the situation is that pharmaceutical products are already much more expensive than they are in all other developed capitalist economies such as Canada, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Germany. It is very likely that as the drug prices continue to soar, they'll become even less accessible to the general public and the quality of health-care in this country will decline even further.

 Predictably, Tauzin left his congressional post to become the chief lobbyist for these companies.  He was followed by his cronies who also played an instrumental role in legislating the infamous bill such as John McManus, Linda Fishman, Calving Weldon and at least 12 others. Far from being an act of a free-market economy, this legislation is a clear example of a trend that has been undermining economic freedom in the United States for the last two decades. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, the U.S is only the 10th freest economy in the world and continues to decline.

The analysts of this international agency cited the "trend toward cronyism that erodes the rule of law" as one of the salient reasons why the U.S economy is becoming less free every year. Most Americans tend to think that the United States is a bastion of economic freedom and countries such Canada and Denmark are socialistic by comparison. The reality is that the economies of both countries are freer than that of the United States, most notably, the Index of Economic Freedom places Canada four positions ahead of the United States. Rule of law is an essential component of a free economy and the corporate lobbyists' ability to heavily influence government policies with impunity is one of the greatest threats to economic freedom in this country.

Why Lowering Taxes For The Rich Does Not Decrease Unemployment

Lowering taxes for the rich does not decrease unemployment because it is not in the best interest of the transnational corporations to use the resulting profits for job-creation. Instead, they often opt to channel the additional funds into activities that promote their growth more than job-creation. For example, they often use the funds obtained due to decreased taxation to finance their expansion projects in other countries. Just as frequently, they make political campaign contributions through  lobbying that leads government executives to enact laws favorable to their companies. Even more commonly, they spend it on duplicitous advertisements that enable them to post windfall profits for sales of products of questionable quality.

To be sure, impoverished employers who cannot expand are incapable of giving jobs to the unemployed. That is why the government may combat the problem of unemployment by lowering taxes on moribund small businesses whose very existence is threatened by onerous taxation. Clearly, small organizations will find it in their best interest to expand and thereby provide additional jobs, but that is not always in the best interest of the transnational corporations.

If Wal-Mart wished to expand today, their capital is already more than sufficient to achieve that objective. Wal-Mart's profits are not threatened by the scarcity of consumers and they do not need to create more jobs to service more buyers. Instead, Wal-Mart's profits  are threatened by laws and regulations that prevent them from behaving in a manner that most of their customers view as immoral.  For example, Wal-Mart is threatened by the members of the government who do not always support policies favorable to their business interests, regulations on advertisements that prevent them from unethically marketing their products and laws that do not allow them to pollute the environment as they wish. Thus, it stands to reason that any windfall profits because of the "Tax cuts for the rich" will be used for purposes other than job-creation.

Nine symptoms of an intellectual neophyte

Seasoned participants in intellectual discussions have encountered them at least once. We're all familiar with the people who cannot help but disrupt the conversation by digressing it into irrelevant topics, vehemently attacking a certain point of view without understanding it or making effete attempts to substantiate their position with fallacious arguments. Fortunately, it is possible to identify them at a very early point in the interaction by recognizing their key characteristics.  The document below contains a list of several cognitive tendencies that most intellectual novitiates tend to display consistently. 


1. The Rationalist's fallacy. Lack of openness to examination of the core ideas of their worldview, tendency to presume that they can comprehensively and indisputably establish their theoretical framework on a small number of premises that can be used to critique all rival theses. In general, people who are experienced with intellectual or even plainly academic endeavors tend to be more mindful of how easily even the most apparently solid of premises can be undermined.

2. Sloppy generalizations. Tendency to be glib by working with sloppy generalizations as opposed to specific ideas and referencing apparently difficult concepts without making a clear point. Clarity and thoroughness of thought is the hallmark of an experienced thinker, we all start out with vague notions and amorphous intuitions about the concepts we're studying and only later gain the ability to think in more precise or comprehensive terms. The sloppy generalizations also manifest in the composition fallacy (this candidate voted against the pro-labor laws, so all other members of his party will always do likewise).


3. The bifurcation fallacy. This trait is generally displayed in dichotomous or black and white thinking; inability to evaluate concepts on the basis of a continuum rather than categorical bifurcations or absolutes. Experienced thinkers tend to understand that most dichotomies are false as they've grown out of that phase years ago.

4. General intellectual insecurity. Evident displays of personal insecurities in intellectual discussions that manifests in vehement opposition to a particular concept, eminent thinker or another interlocutor in the group. Experienced discussion participants enjoy challenging their own worldview and aren't easily threatened or unsettled by challenges.

5. Poor pattern recognition. This trait manifests in narrowness of perspective and repeated inability to grasp the main idea behind the discussion and the subsequent tendency to excessively focus on a rather trivial or a tangential point at the expense of the general pattern or the overarching theme. Pattern recognition constitutes a vital elements of most intellectual undertakings. If someone struggles with that, chances are that their skill-level is rudimentary at best.

6. General arrogance. A haughty, supercilious attitude that stems from the person's inflated opinion of their intellectual abilities. Experience tends to humble us and that's true in virtually every walk of life, not just philosophy. If someone is a fundamentally conceited person, but they have studied philosophy to the point where they've become proficient at intellectual inquiry of some kind, they shouldn't be arrogant about philosophical matters. It is much easier to shelter illusions of one's own stupendous competence in many other activities in life than it is in philosophy. In my experience, even the very egotistical people tend to become humble about their intellectual abilities once they start becoming proficient in philosophy or any other similarly intellectually demanding discipline.

7. Failure to emotionally disengage from the discussion. People who display this quality tend to become embroiled in polemical confrontations and have a tendency to strongly identify with one side of the discussion by taking umbrage at criticisms of their preferred position. In general, emotional detachment is one of the core competencies of intellectual inquiry.

8. Failure to demonstrate autonomy of judgment. This manifests in the person's intransigent or partisan support for a particular authority-concept that could be intellectual, religious, political or even personal. I.E, "
the Bible says so that's what I am sticking to, I looked it up on the internet so this stuff must be right! Atheism is the way to go as our secular humanism is the antidote to religious bigotry, my grandfather told me this before he died! I've read this in a philosophy book or a real scientific study, so bow to me!"


9. Excessive image consciousness. Tendency to excessively rely on recherché vocabulary, technical or neo-logistic words and unwillingness or inability to clarify and simplify their position once requested to. Such people tend to be far more interested in merely appearing intelligent as opposed to increasing their intellectual competence. In stark contrast with the experienced thinkers, these people generally have little interest in learning or helping others do so.

To conclude that an individual displays any of the above symptoms, the above described behaviors must be part of their general repertoire as opposed to isolated incidents. A member of the discussion group can be classified as a neophyte if he or she repeatedly displays at least five of the aforementioned symptoms.