[TimTheTinker]

Completely agreed.

The idea that we have to "tear it all down" and institute Marxism is backward and self-contradictory.

As you said, we need to identify where and how rule of law is lacking and fix it, making sure that representative government and separation of powers remains intact (or is put in place again).

[TimTheTinker]

I know this may be against the guidelines, but does anyone know why the above comment was downvoted?

Do people really favor Marxism, or is something else wrong?

[swores]

It could be because:

a) It's not uncommon these days for the term "Marxism" to be used as a brush to paint anyone "too left wing" (despite not being close to actual Marxists)

b) "Cultural Marxism" has become an antisemitic term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...

Plus, yes there are still some people in the world who believe in Marxism, although often just in a broad sense rather than thinking everything about it is right. But I doubt many on HN.

And while complaining about downvoted may be against the rules, personally I think it's completely fine in the context of wanting to understand something like your question, rather than "this shouldn't be downvoted".

[TimTheTinker]

Thanks, I appreciate the help.

[sudosysgen]

Do you actually believe that letting people pay for guaranteed enrollment is at all acceptable?

[kenhwang]

There was a study suggesting the strongest social mobility influence granted by an university education is really just the proximity and opportunity to network with the wealthy on even grounds more than the education itself.

So by having a guaranteed ratio of very wealthy mixed into your student pool, it's hugely beneficial to everyone else. It's practically the reason people chase after prestigious MBA educations.

The practice might be distasteful philosophically, but the results are apparently great.

[TimTheTinker]

Not at all!! Not sure where you got that. I think this business of improper admission and bribes violates rule of law terribly.

That's the point -- rule of law means everyone is subject to the same rules, without partiality.

[sudosysgen]

Well no, that's not really what rule of law means. It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions. If this wasn't a public institution, it would be perfectly legal, and I'm not even sure it's illegal here.

Rule of law is not sufficient, power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes.

[TimTheTinker]

> It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions

Not if a law exists to the contrary. And that was the point I was agreeing with -- the solution should be to write a law if one doesn't already exist; or to enforce it if it does.

> power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes

Agreed, though distribution isn't the word I'd use, as it implies the existence of another human authority to determine how it should be distributed (thus granting that person or group of people improper power).

But if the placement of power is determined by duly enacted law, that's acceptable.

[gowld]

I do. It's absurd that _anyone_ with a high school diploma is refused enrollment at a public college.

[corin_]

But the question is also: which college?

It's a fine view that nobody should be denied great education, but if an entire country's annual cohort of high school diploma recipients all applies to the public college considered to be the best one they obviously couldn't all attend that one.