The author doesn't specifically mention higher education, but we know that the same barriers he discusses in this article exist to hamstring small startup operations and religious groups who dare to enter the marketplace and compete against the entrenched, wealthy higher ed cartel.  Some of those would-be cut-rate competitors are sitting in jail cells this very moment.  

Quote:Entrepreneurs Under Attack
by John Stossel
09/08/2010

Every day, federal, state and local governments stifle small businesses to privilege well-connected incumbent companies. It's a system of protectionism for influential insiders who don't want competition. Every locality has its share of business moguls who are cozy with politicians. Together, they use the power of government to keep competition down and prices high.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, works to free entrepreneurs from such opportunity-killing regulations. Here are four cases from IJ's files.

Case No. 1. The monks at St. Joseph Abbey had to take the state of Louisiana to federal court to defend their right to make money selling handmade caskets. That's right: empty wooden boxes. But as soon as the monks started selling them, they were shocked to receive a cease-and-desist order from something called the Louisiana State Board of Funeral Directors. The funeral directors had managed to get their state to pass a law decreeing that only "licensed funeral directors" may sell "funeral merchandise" like caskets. To sell caskets legally, the monks would have to obtain a funeral director's license. That required a year-long apprenticeship, passing a funeral industry test and converting their monastery into a "funeral establishment" by installing embalming equipment, among other things.

The state board and the Louisiana Funeral Directors Association -- the profession's lobbyist -- say the law is designed to protect consumers. But that's what established businesses always say about absurd regulations they demand. An unusually candid funeral director told The Wall Street Journal, "They're cutting into our profit." Well, yes, free competition does do that. That's the point.

Another funeral director said that the law must remain unchanged because casket-making is a complicated business: "A quarter of America is oversized. I don't even know if the monks know how to make an oversized casket." Does that even deserve a comment?

Case No. 2. Hector Ricketts wants to offer New York City residents an alternative to New York's slow and clumsy public transportation. He employs drivers who offer commuters rides in minivans. The vans serve mostly low-income neighborhoods and typically charge $2 a head. People like the vans. They're more convenient than unionized government-run public transit -- and cheaper, too. The subways and buses charge $2.25.

So the city's public transit union used its political connections to regulate the vans to death: The politicians have decreed that vans may not drive routes used by city buses or provide service to a passenger unless it is prearranged by phone; and the vans must keep a passenger manifest on board and enter the name of everyone to be picked up.

"Government makes it easier to get on welfare than to grow my business," Ricketts says.

The fight continues.

Case No. 3. Melony Armstrong of Tupelo, Miss., wanted to expand her African hair-braiding business. But Mississippi bureaucrats told her that to teach workers how to braid she needed a full cosmetology license. That required 1,200 hours of classes. Next, she needed a cosmetology instructor's license -- 2,000 more hours.

The courses and license had little to do with her profession. They were simply barriers to entry favored by her competition. Fortunately, IJ won that case.

Case No. 4. Dennis Ballen has a bagel shop located far off the main roads in Redmond, Wash. He couldn't afford to advertise on radio or TV, so he paid someone (typically unemployable people with quirky personalities) to stand on the road with a sign directing traffic to his store. It worked. The sign brought him two or three new customers a day.

Then Redmond police slapped him with a cease-and-desist order, warning he could face a year in jail or up to $5,000 in fines if he didn't stop displaying the sign. Ballen estimates that he would lose at least $200 a day in business if he complied. He and IJ sued the city and won the right to employ the sign-holder.

It's great that IJ and some determined entrepreneurs win a few victories for free enterprise. But in a country with a real free market, such lawsuits would be unnecessary.

Quote:A trend in sociopathology?

Postby g-gollin on Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:57 pm
Is it the case that all the degree-mill-shill internet forums of recent years have displayed strongly homophobic, antisemitic, anti-Muslim colors? That was certainly the case with militaryforums/militarydistance education as well as the not-quite-extinct DLT. But there have been a number of short-lived ones in the heyday of St. Regis, too, that were nasty in tone. I think they were a little more broadminded in their misanthropy, but I do remember how much anti-Catholic material John Dovelos posted in early 2005 in some places.

A good analysis of this would require proper identification of the few wretches hiding under the many aliases to avoid overcounting. Certainly the small number of people at DLT were responsible for much of the howling at MilitaryFork'ems.

It appears that most of their anti-African American postings are less broad-spectrum racism than rage that the most popular presidential candidate in 2008 is the son of an African father. And since he is an educated, articulate man with earned degrees from legitimate schools, he is the target of their anger. It is funny to think that the apparent racism of the two active DLT members might actually be a cover for a different source of their antipathy.

I have it on good authority that Warren National University credits are no longer accepted by Grand Canyon University.

Does anyone know of any accredited schools which would accept credits from WNU?

I think its possible that Charter Oak College, Thomas Edison State College and Excelsior College may allow students to get credit by examination but I do not know.

Anyone have any other ideas?

Quote:Labor Day Has Become Government Day

Posted September 6th, 2010 at 9:00am
James Sherk

This Labor Day marks a milestone in the history of the U.S. union movement. It is the first Labor Day on which a majority of union members in United States work for the government. In January the Department of Labor reported that union membership in government has overtaken that in the private sector. Three times as many union members work in the Post Office as in the entire domestic auto industry. The face of the union movement is not a worker on the assembly line but a clerk at the DMV.

This is a dramatic shift for the union movement. The early trade unionists did not believe that unions had a place in government. They believed the purpose of unions was to redistribute business profits from owners to workers … and the government makes no profits.  Not until the 1960s did unionizing government employees become widespread. Now government employees make up 52 percent of all union members.

So what? Why should Americans care if unions are now dominated by workers who get their paychecks from governments, instead of workers who get their paychecks from private firms? There’s one simple reason: private firms face competition; governments don’t.

Collective bargaining, the anti-trust exemption at the heart the labor movement’s power, was created to help workers seize their “fair share” of business profits. But if a union ends up extracting a contract from a private firm that eats up too much of the profits, then that firm will be unable to reinvest those resources and will lose out to competitors. But when a union extracts a generous contract from a government, there is no check on that spending. Instead of being forced out by more efficient competitors, the government just raises taxes.

The shift from private to public sector has fundamentally changed organized labor’s priorities. Unions used to support policies that would help their private sector employers grow. But now that they are largely dependent on the government, the only growth that unions are interested in is the growth of government. So unions push for tax increases across the country. Consider recent union activism:

•Illinois. Unions want state lawmakers to increase the state income tax from 3 percent to 5 percent and to expand the sales tax to cover some services. In April 2010 they organized rallies of government workers outside the state capitol shouting “Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes! Raise my taxes!” At that rally, a government union member was caught on camera chanting “Where’s the money?” and “Give up the bucks!”

•Montana. The Montana teachers union openly sees itself as a supporter of tax and spend politics. Its President boasts, “Were it not for us almost any one of the … anti-tax and spend ballot issues proposed in the last 25 years would have passed.”

•New Mexico. Unions lobbied the state’s legislature to raise taxes to deal with its budget deficit. The union got its wish, but it was not the wealthy who paid – the legislature imposed a 2 percent sales tax on food.

•Washington state. Washington state has no income tax, and unions want to change that. They have placed an initiative on the November ballot creating a state income tax and are among the top donors to the campaign to pass it.

Government unions are the backbone of the Obama dependency economy. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize union campaigns, much less those that call for tax increases. At the very least Congress should end the automatic payroll deduction of union dues.

I came across an interesting case where a small unaccredited school defeats the Texas Department of Education in court, defeating its diploma mill legislation.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/hi...030995.htm

The Supreme Court rules that the State of Texas has no control over the curriculum content of religious schools, the use of the word "Seminary", or the usage of the term "diploma".

The northern state of Wyoming has recently passed laws forcing religious schools in the state to get accredited. But how could a state force a religious school to get accredited or do anything with its curriculum without violating the Free Exercise guarantees of the First Amendment, similar to what happened in this case?

http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/2010/...ge%208.pdf

See "I don't recognize myself" on the right side.

Anyone who thinks that the Cheyenne Herald is anything other than a vehicle for some psycho has not seen the latest dribble.

I would consider this funny if it were not so pathetic.

I even feel guilty about posting this.  Do you feel guilty for reading it?

Quote:Guilt Trip 101: The New College Prerequisite
by Evan Gassman
09/02/2010

Reading, writing and arithmetic aren’t the only subjects going to be covered in schools this fall. Former studies done by Young America’s Foundation have proven that a myriad of bizarre classes exist across the country, but a new theme on campus is becoming apparent: guilt.

A Young America’s Foundation alumnus contacted us recently about a class he registered for. “Business and its Environment,” sounds innocent enough—but of course, it wasn’t. Like many other college classes, there is a hidden agenda. “Business and its Environment,” is a class about how to ensure businesses do not hamper “sustainability.”

That first assignment was, “Calculate your ecological footprint at footprintnetwork.com. … What do you need to change?”

See that clever slight-of-hand there? Guilt is implied in the assignment. This class, like many others, is not exactly a free exchange of ideas—the syllabus includes loaded terms such as “social implications”—terms that, again, imply guilt.

Are the students that registered for “Business and its Environment,” learning about business or entrepreneurship or even the free-enterprise system? No, they’re learning about how to be socially responsible via reading books like The Story of Stuff. It’s not a business class at all—it’s a class designed to make students feel guilty for being students. (The Story of Stuff accuses producers and consumers of “planet exploitation.”)

That is what the liberal indoctrination machine looks like in the 21st Century— the politics of guilt are infused in every nook and cranny on any given college campus. Of course we know that, “Taking Marx Seriously,” or “American Dreams/American Realities,” will be a hit job on American values, but “Business and its Environment?” Who knew?

Classes aren’t the only activities present on college campuses insisting students feel “guilty.” George Washington University, for example, has a “Green Book Club,” and once forced incoming freshmen to read Hot, Flat and Crowded, which is in part a global-warming alarmism book that bemoans the overuse of natural resources. They even brought the author to campus, just in case students didn’t entirely get the message.

Harvard University employs 16 people in their “office of sustainability.” What are the purposes of an “office of sustainability,” you ask? One activity they undertake is a “trash audit,” where they look at students’ trash and determine whether it is recyclable or not. (Your tuition dollars hard at work, Harvard.) The conclusion of the last audit was that 23% of trash thrown away at Harvard was recyclable. Feeling guilty yet?

A Young America’s Foundation alumna from the University of Virginia was forced to sit through “Diversity Day,” a day aimed at enlightening white students about how privileged they are and how guilty they should feel about it. This theme on college campuses has been labeled, “white guilt”—the emotion white students are expected to feel.

Students are being programmed to feel guilty starting on day one. This is the new college prerequisite: Guilt Trip 101. The course load is heavy, and attendance is mandatory. Leave any premonitions you had about your exuberant lifestyles at the door.

Stop telling the truth about me.  

I'm warning all of you.  

This is going to go down in your permanent record.

The article discusses several aspects of the bankrupt welfare state in Finland, but of particular interest here is the portion discussing their higher ed system.

Even people in thoroughly socialist Scandinavia are talking about how college degrees are worthless in the job market and cutting government spending.  People are waking up everywhere.

Quote:The Bankrupt Finnish Welfare State

Tuesday, August 31, 2010 by Kaj Grussner

Progressives in America are often keen on promoting the European welfare state as an argument for big government, not least in the healthcare debate. They point to European countries, often the social-democratic Nordic countries, as role models, with their universal healthcare, public school system, generous social-safety net, and all the happy people who live there.

This line of argument got a significant boost when Newsweek proclaimed that Finland was the best country in the world to live in, closely followed by Sweden and Switzerland. And of course they are happy. After all, there is no poverty in these great countries, the populace is educated, and people generally don't have a care in the world, because the benevolent government is always there to solve every problem.

Many people have tried to dispel this myth, but it still persists. I don't presume to be able to put this issue to rest, but there are some things that should be known about this mythical utopia, the "best country in the world" — Finland.

Government Education

Like other Scandinavian countries, Finland likes boasting about its public education system. All schools are run by the government, even the universities. There are no tuition fees for Finnish students. On the contrary, students actually get paid over 400 euros per month to get a degree, in addition to heavily subsidized student loans, student lunches, etc. Free higher education is seen as a right, and because it is a right it must be accessible. To this end, Finland has 20 universities and 27 polytechnics. This in a country with about 5.3 million people, of which 1 million live in the capital-city area, and where only five other cities have a population over 100,000.

One might think it great that there are so many places of higher learning in a country with so few inhabitants, a proof that its people are educated and civilized. Few things could be further from the truth.

First of all, the reason for having so many universities is regional politics. Politicians buy votes by creating and maintaining government jobs in depressed areas — the oldest trick in the book.

Second, the multitude of universities and polytechnics brings the overall level of education down, because such a small population can't possibly maintain a high standard of education in so many different places. There simply aren't enough competent people to go around, not to mention that many of the universities and polytechnics are located in less than desirable places. Only very few of the Finnish universities can lay claim to a really high standard of education. Of course, the economics education is subpar across the board.

Third, with higher education so accessible, it lures thousands of people every year to go for a degree, even though they have no business in the world of academia. This produces a great number of bachelors, masters, and PhDs who don't have any value on the job market because they studied literature, art history, religious studies, or something like that. In many cases, they didn't choose their major because they actually thought it would give them a job; they chose it because it seemed fun or interesting, or it was easier to get into than law school or medical school.

Unemployment among educated people has become a chronic problem. The other side of the coin is that Finland has long had an acute shortage of people with trade skills: carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, and so on — people who can actually provide a valuable service. The shortage has, predictably, driven up prices and prolonged delivery.

. . .

With a License to Rob

As a tax consultant, I am frequently engaged in legal battles with the tax authorities, representing my clients and trying to protect their rights. In these fights, I encounter the arrogance, and in some cases the sheer malevolence, of the taxman, completely uncensored. I never cease to be amazed by the ignorance and the callousness of this particular department of the state.

As a rule, the tax authorities don't care about the law, in the rare event they even know it. Not only that, but it is clear from the way they act that they consider every penny to be their money, and may only be retained by the taxpayer at their discretion. It even happens that they make up arguments that are blatantly false and without any legal ground whatsoever in order to levy more taxes and impose various other sanctions. When the taxpayers challenge their outrageous claims, they simply ignore the challenges and press on as if nothing has happened — even though the constitution mandates that all decisions and rulings made by a government agency must be based on law and thoroughly explained.

This doesn't seem to apply to the tax authorities though, and neither do other legal principles. In all other matters, you are innocent until proven guilty, but if the taxman charges you with something, it is you who has to prove your innocence. If you fail, you're guilty, and it is the tax authorities who decide whether you fail.

This type of behavior is certainly familiar to the American public, as the IRS has subjected them to all kinds of violations. However, these violations, taking place no less regularly in Finland than in the United States, fly in the face of the aura of utopia that seems to surround the social-democratic welfare states of Northern Europe.

The statists may be very comfortable with high taxes, but even they tend to become squeamish when they hear of the havoc wrought upon private individuals and their families by the tax authorities. And it is of course the private individuals and small businessmen who suffer the most aggression, because they seldom have the knowledge or the resources to defend themselves. Billionaires and big corporations at least have a fighting chance; the little guys don't. So much for the compassionate society.

In a system such as this — with a very vague tax code; tax officials who are exempt from responsibility for their conduct; and onerous, never-compensated legal expenses arising from litigation against the tax authorities — the rights of the taxpayers are routinely violated. The officials have no interest in making the right decision, so whenever a case is not utterly and totally obvious, they rule in favor of the state.

"The state enacts vague legislation and then makes the taxpayer pay for its interpretation."After that, the taxpayer can choose between paying the additional and often unlawful tax, or spending time and money challenging the decision. And because the tax officials can and do routinely ignore the taxpayer's arguments, even the most trivial of cases can be appealed through the judicial system all the way to the Supreme Administrative Court, the highest court in the land. If the taxpayer is unlucky, it can take as long as ten years to settle a dispute, costing tens of thousands in legal fees. And if he wins, he is not compensated for the time and money spent defending his rights, nor are the responsible tax officials reprimanded for their conduct. For this reason, most tax disputes are settled mainly by referring to case law, and the case law has to a large extent been paid for by the taxpayers. In other words, the state enacts vague legislation and then makes the taxpayer pay for its interpretation.

. . .

Conclusion

Finland is, and has long been, a poster child for the utopian European social-democratic welfare state, and has now been named the greatest country in the world, in a bizarre remake of Time's Person of the Year award to Ben Bernanke.

In Finland, the progressives believe, big government works. So do universal healthcare and public, "free" education. And if Finland can do it, so can the United States. The flaw in that argument is that Finland actually can't do it, no more than Obama can keep his promises.

The Finnish welfare state comes at a price we can't afford. The healthcare system is severely inefficient and costly, and stands in the way of normal people's access to the truly great medical care provided by the private sector. The public education is also very costly and constantly short of money. Textbooks are passed on from generation to generation, everybody learning the same fallacies as the ones before them, provided that books are even readable.

The idea of everyone's right to a university degree has resulted in a very high number of university graduates, but their degrees are often of no value on the job market. Due to high taxes and both the legal and financial risks of employing people, an 8 percent unemployment rate is considered normal. And did I mention that the retirement system is every bit as much of a Ponzi scheme as the US Social Security system, and is on the verge of collapse?

The national debt has already reached alarming levels. What's more, there hasn't been an extended period of time when the principal of the debt has been systematically paid off. At best, it has remained fairly stable, only to shoot up by almost 50 percent in the last couple of years, if the projections hold true. Bankruptcy will come unless significant changes are made.

I do, however, want to end on a positive note. In survey after survey, the Finnish people overwhelmingly favor cutting government spending as a means to get the public finances under control. Previously, the Finnish have not minded paying taxes, but now they are waking up to the fact that raising taxes is not a viable option anymore.

Next year, we Finns go to the polling stations to elect a new parliament. I hope the outcome of the election will reflect this important and new-found realization.