Wednesday, December 28, 2011

RE Benzion Chinn

I think this is going to be my last post on this matter...

Benzion wrote:
This might sound funny coming from an Asperger, but I see Baruch as suffering from a lack of a theory of mind. (See Neurotypical Mental and Emotional Handicaps.)...At a physiological level Baruch simply does not get that there are other people out there who believe differently from him and are equally convinced of their beliefs as he is. Baruch thinks that it is so obvious that he is right that if he repeats his arguments or has the government step in and support him as being right, those other people will eventually come to their senses; that the Christians, Haredim and white supremacists will suddenly realize that they are superstitious intolerant bigots, apologize to Baruch for being such naughty children and go home.

Now, he just made this stuff up (funny, for somebody who compared my view of the world to that of haredi historical revisionists). I do understand (physiologically, even!) that there are people who believe differently than me and are equally convinced of their beliefs as I am. I don't think they will just come to their senses if the government supports me. I don't think "they'll apologize to Baruch for being such naughty children and go home." So that whole bit is a destabilizing lie meant to pull emotional strings. Benzion can be excused of trying to mislead you on the grounds that he may well be deluding himself.

Benzion sees separation of church and state as "not a legitimate legal concept, but a letter from Thomas Jefferson, wrongfully brought into play in the twentieth century." I don't know where he gets that from; it seems to me that any intellectually honest person making a claim about the separation of church and state would have looked into American history and found out that the precedent obviously goes back at least to Reynolds v. United States (1878). Benzion can disagree with the judgment in that case, but I don't think he should pretend that the court decision doesn't exist.

Benzion understands "the Constitution's establishment clause to apply to all ideas," which is odd because it specifically refers to religion (I would take the mention of the word "religion" directly as an indication that the founding fathers differed between religion and truths to be regarded as factual). But he thinks it applies to all ideas. According to Benzion, the government shouldn't be involved in doing anything except protecting a person's right to not be physically harmed. So the government-funded public schools can teach that Jesus is your savior, you can put your minor in a sweatshop or a brothel [!?!]...I think Benzion and I disagree on the role of government in protecting peoples' rights here.

Because I have been having a rough week, I neglected to mention that during our initial conversation, I asked some people from The Straight Dope for insights (I didn't mention it initially to Benzion because I was having an even rougher time during that conversation). I thought I'd here quote one of the commenters there, Der Trihs:

...First, the alternative to public schools is massive public ignorance; they were created in the first place because before the government stepped in most of the population had no formal education at all. Second, evolution and the falsehood of creation is a fact, not just an opinion. Third, children are not the toys of parents to exploit as they will, they have rights too; including the right not to be rendered hopelessly ignorant because their parents prefer lies over truth.

And fourth, his position is the authoritarian one; as libertarians typically do he is pretending that government action is the only possible source of oppression. Saying that the government should only take action to defend "people from direct physical harm caused by other people without their consent" is a demand that the primary function of government should be as a tool of oppression for the wealthy and powerful organizations. Because the rich and large organizations like corporations, political parties and religious organizations and so on don't need to use violence to get their way, to oppress and exploit the common people. The common people however need the government to protect them from just that. And if the government refuses to protect them, then all the common people have left is force - and then and only then is when the libertarians like your friend want the government to step in, on the side of the wealthy and powerful. Under the system your friend wants the only real function of the government is to serve as a giant boot to stomp on any of the lower classes who get uppity. not to help people, not to educate or defend them from being exploited; just to crush them when they get tired of being treated as slaves.

10 comments:

  1. I do not think he was referring to you about your lack of understanding the mind of people but me. I am also Baruch. You probably got bi-confused and thought he was referring to you (Baruch).
    ---

    I want to respond to some of these points that were brought up.

    "First, the alternative to public schools is massive public ignorance; they were created in the first place because before the government stepped in most of the population had no formal education at all.":

    No it is not. Before the existence of public schools in US history the education system was provided entirely through the market. The literacy rates were rising really high. The US achieved very high literacy rates without any public schooling at all, it was also privately managed. So your point about massive public ignorance is historically wrong.

    Furthermore, there are lots of public schools today. You do not think they are sources of major public ignorance? Public schools are for the most part big huge failures now. More money gets thrown at them and it goes down the drain. Public schools hardly have any tract record to be proud of.

    Lastly, this is the fallacy of assuming that just because something exists it was necessary. There are laws against marijuana usage. Does this mean that if there were no laws against marijuana there would be an all out war in the US? No. There were once laws against inter-racial marriaged does this mean that these laws are necessary? No. Just because a law exists does not make it necessary. Likewise, just because public schools were put into place does not automatically mean they were necessary to begin with. If you believe they are necessary then you need to use a different argument, but I doubt you can do that because of the first two points I mentioned above.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Third, children are not the toys of parents to exploit as they will, they have rights too.":

    I agree. But children are also not toys of the government to exploit as they will. Consider countries with not private education for example. In those countries there are no private schools and public education is mandatory. If a parent decides not to send their children to public school but to educate the kid themselves then they would be breaking the law. Children must go to public schools. The state is telling parents they must send their children to their schools without a parent having a say in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "as libertarians typically do he is pretending that government action is the only possible source of oppression.":

    Which libertarians actually believe that only government can oppress? I can oppress people to. I can take out my automatic assault rifle and go into the street and start massacring people. That is oppresion too. The point is not that citizens cannot oppress but only government can, but rather that government action is a major concentration of oppression while individual is not. The amount of oppresion that resulted from state action far far far outweighs the amount of oppresion that resulted from people themselves.

    "Because the rich and large organizations like corporations.":

    Corporations are legal entities created from the state which can privatize their profits and socialize their losses. Being against state oppresion is to be against corporations.

    "political parties.":

    Political parties are part of the government also. The oppression that results from political parties is immediately the result from government oppresion.

    Therefore, being against the oppression from the government is to be automatically be against the oppression that results from these also.

    "Under the system your friend wants the only real function of the government is to serve as a giant boot to stomp on any of the lower classes who get uppity. not to help people, not to educate or defend them from being exploited; just to crush them when they get tired of being treated as slaves.":

    The government does not care about people. People suck. People mostly only care about themselves. If you create an institution of power and wealth do not be surprised if this institution acts for its own interests rather than the interests of the people.

    The government, rather serves the interest of the rich and wealthy, something you want to avoid. It makes more sense to oppose government action than to support it for this reason alone. The government fails are education, it fails at welfare, and it fails at caring for the interests of the people.

    My ideas actually protect the weak more than your ideas. Because my idea is to eliminate the very instrument that can be used by the strong to oppress the weak.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Baruch Spinoza:
    This is part of an ongoing conversation; he was referring to me, he was just giving a "shout out" to you at the end

    Here's a question Reb Spinoza: Do you also want to deregulate the banks? Do you figure the Invisible Hand will take care of things, protect the liberties of the little guy? I know Benzion does, he's already written that the only patur government action is to protect you from physical harm.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Here's a question Reb Spinoza: Do you also want to deregulate the banks?":

    I really dislike the word "deregulate". But if you mean to ask me do I think that banks should be entirely uncontrolled by the government then yes.

    "Do you figure the Invisible Hand will take care of things, protect the liberties of the little guy?":

    No, I do not believe in that. I believe that the Invisible Hand will give a giant middle finger to people who put their money into a bank under certain conditions. That will happen.

    But I also believe that these things will always happen. Despite whether you have regulations of not. The US bank system is by far the most regulated system and the problems still happen.

    Can you trust banks to not screw you over? In general yes, but under certain conditions they can take advantage of you. But here is my point. Can you trust the government not to screw you over? No. Because the ultimate problem are people. People are corruptable and weak. I do not believe for a moment that a government bank system will be fear from corruption. In fact, I fear a government bank system even more because they can get away with their fraud, at least a private bank is accountable to the law.

    The US does have a government bank (well to be fair it is a "private bank" if you really want to abuse the term) called the Federal Reserve. It used its money to give bonuses to the croocked rich guys on Wallstreet.

    I do happen to believe that private banks will function better, but that is an entirely seperate discussion. Here I am just saying that banks, might, end up screwing you over. But the same criticism is not removed when the government is in charge.

    The solution to the problem of people is not more people.

    Besides, what does this have anything to do with this post? You just want to know how "extreme" I am. Well you can go to my Blog and find out that for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I know Benzion does, he's already written that the only patur government action is to protect you from physical harm.":

    I should have wrote this in my reply to you above but I do not believe in that also. I am against all states. So I do disagree with Benzion on this issue. However, this is an entirely off topic discussion. We are talking public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Our discussion of public schools is related to our views of the government's role. To deregulate the banks due to this view of liberty I think would be utterly ruinous. So too with education (I would agree with Benzion that in the scenario he is presenting, "giving over a meaningful education is likely to be a problem"). This view of liberty, IMHO, leaves the little guy defenseless.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "To deregulate the banks due to this view of liberty I think would be utterly ruinous.":

    Why? I just explained above why government regulations do not necessary end up protecting you. They can also be used this time with the state-banks to screw you over still. What about a government that makes it a magical angelic entity that you can trust over banks themselves? In either case you will have people screwing over people.

    Here is another thing about regulations I forgot to mention. Do you know that much of the regulations that are put on businesses are put by the businesses themselves? Do you know that businesses lobby the state to get regulated? Why? Because it protects them. It either protects them from competition or it does favors for them that makes their businesses easier. You say how regulations are to protect people but it is funny how so many of them were used for the reason of protecting businesses.

    "This view of liberty, IMHO, leaves the little guy defenseless.":

    How? Can you explain this point? And can you address the failure of the state to defend people up to?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes the Reynolds case quoted the words “separation of Church and State,” but used them in a way that is very counter to how most people today think of the issue. The Supreme Court was giving the government the power to step in and go after the LDS Church over polygamy, arguing that the fact that polygamy was a religious belief did not protect the Mormons.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think both of you should take a step back and a deep breath before this gets too personal.

    ReplyDelete