3 ms·

The situation is actually more complicated than your question suggests because a public university is a mashup of government, corporation, and parent. So the s

by gwright 10y ago

The situation is actually more complicated than your question suggests because a public university is a mashup of government, corporation, and parent. So the simple answer to your question is that your relationship to government is not voluntary and is backed by the the use of force. If the government forbids something from being sold you have no legal recourse beyond leaving the jurisdiction. If a company makes a change that is unwelcome, the market readily adapts to providing alternative solutions that are more welcomed by the market. The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government. Lots of policy conundrums with public schools disappear when you consider the same situation at a private school: religious content, political philosophy, gender segregation, choice of beverages to provide, and so on. That isn't to say that policy choices don't have pros and cons, just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied (to all public schools, for example).

cam_l 10y ago
"The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government." That was exactly my (counter)point. Your argument is theoretical, but in practice often the relationship with a company is as difficult to change as with government. The example raised of sugary drinks, in practice, due to aggressive marketing and positioning meant that sugary drinks were the only option in most places I lived for quite some time (school, public places, fast food, work) unless you had access to a tap. (The bottling of water in the last few years has made a dent in that stranglehold.) Clearly the market can be easily manipulated at least in the short term, with advertising, market monopolisation, lies from sugar industry lobbyists.. "just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied" Arguable. Private policy choices, if economically successful create internal feedback effects and spread. (Bear in mind economics does not follow peoples values, wishes or best interests.. at best it follows their desires, and not even always). But even otherwise, it matters little if you are one of the unfortunate kids attending that school with skewed religious / political content.

by gwright 10y ago

cam_l 10y ago

"The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government." That was exactly my (counter)point. Your argument is theoretical, but in practice often the relationship with a company is as difficult to change as with government. The example raised of sugary drinks, in practice, due to aggressive marketing and positioning meant that sugary drinks were the only option in most places I lived for quite some time (school, public places, fast food, work) unless you had access to a tap. (The bottling of water in the last few years has made a dent in that stranglehold.) Clearly the market can be easily manipulated at least in the short term, with advertising, market monopolisation, lies from sugar industry lobbyists.. "just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied" Arguable. Private policy choices, if economically successful create internal feedback effects and spread. (Bear in mind economics does not follow peoples values, wishes or best interests.. at best it follows their desires, and not even always). But even otherwise, it matters little if you are one of the unfortunate kids attending that school with skewed religious / political content.