Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricia
How strange. In my philosophy department our main political philosophy course covered both Locke and Robert Nozick, (who both argued for a minimal state) as well as the other main political philosophies.
|
Patricia, let me be a little more specific. In the state school I went to, Locke was covered, the same as the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were covered, as historical events, with only a cursory relevance to current events/concepts/worldviews.
There was no analysis of what current (and by current I mean in the previous 20 years or so) government decisions did to the social/political/economic environment (both good
and bad). All actions end up with unintended consequences (including no action at all), and teaching people to look for them, and include them in the cost of the decisions made, to be able to evaluate whether or not a decision was sucessful, or needs to be either revised or eliminated or even expanded upon, strikes me as important, no matter what the decision is made.
What I got instead was practical methods and techniques of implementing laws and building consensus for gaining electoral power. Certainly not something an "educated" citizen would need to ably exercise his franchise, unless his goal was to be a corrupt politician.
Of course, I was dealing with Political Science, History, ans Economic classes, rather that philosophy class. There I was able to take logic classes, so I could concentrate on other, tougher courses. (I was a pre-med/molecular biology student, at a time when 4 ot of 5 qualified student didn't get into Med school. The competition was intense.)