Democracy

[an8150]

If I'm being obtuse, Prospero, will you do me the courtesy of explaining why or in what sense?

[broncofan]

You acknowledge that racism has been driven underground. So, there is your reason why someone who believes Arabs are inferior and wants to impart that ethic would say they're savages and not be more explicit about it. I have never heard anyone make a statement with the specificity you would require to have it be racist.

Now Mel Gibson may not have been mincing his words, so why did he not say Jews cause all wars because they're Jewish? He didn't think he had to. He could impart his meaning that Jews are bad apples without saying they have no choice in the matter. In fact, if he believes they are immutably evil, but wanted to condemn them in a way that imparts maximum damage he could pitch the idea that they choose to be evil. Again, his statements were descriptively wrong but part of racism is believing a group is in some way corrupt even if you aren't clear about the causes.

Do you think those on the hard right that claim homosexuals choose to be gay actually believe it? My guess is they don't care but are trying to inflict damage to homosexuals by pretending it is a choice and therefore within the realm of morality.

Anyhow, you're acting as though I am a smear merchant for condemning the statement as racist. I was just trying to be objective about it. I even said above I think her problem is more fundamental than racism, and that her racism is a symptom of her broader philosophy.

[an8150]

broncofan, "You acknowledge that racism has been driven underground. So, there is your reason why someone who believes Arabs are inferior and wants to impart that ethic would say they're savages and not be more explicit about it. I have never heard anyone make a statement with the specificity you would require to have it be racist [I have, but I agree it is rare, which is one reason why I think racism is rarer than you might think... I think the explanation people would just as readily put forward is culturalist; my conclusions on this are unsupported by anything other than personal observation; it seems to me that the most one might rationally say of the claim that "arabs are savages" is that it creates a rebuttable presumption that the speaker is racist or culturalist. Rand, as I think we all agree, is quite happy to speak in provocative terms. I have little doubt that did she blame Arabs as Arabs for savagery then she would be quite as home saying so]

Now Mel Gibson may not have been mincing his words, so why did he not say Jews cause all wars because they're Jewish? He didn't think he had to [yes, for sure, or maybe he was just drunk and stupid]. He could impart his meaning that Jews are bad apples without saying they have no choice in the matter [while I think your example of Gibson's rant is helpful, his rant is also too stupid and drunk to merit serious analysis]. In fact, if he believes they are immutably evil, but wanted to condemn them in a way that imparts maximum damage he could pitch the idea that they choose to be evil. Again, his statements were descriptively wrong but part of racism is believing a group is in some way corrupt even if you aren't clear about the causes [I think you're wrong there. If you're a racist, you believe that a particular race is in some way inferior specifically because it is inherent to that race].

Do you think those on the hard right that claim homosexuals choose to be gay actually believe it? [Probably, they do, yes, very few people go through life wondering how to be, act and say things that are deliberately wicked or mischievous. Most people believe what they believe because it is central to their conception of themselves as good, or nice] My guess is they don't care but are trying to inflict damage to homosexuals by pretending it is a choice and therefore within the realm of morality [Having said the forgoing, I wouldn't in the example you give, discount the possibility of a certain mischievous malice among the critics you've identified, which they may justify to themselves as being in the best interests of those they castigate].

Anyhow, you're acting as though I am a smear merchant for condemning the statement as racist [I've enjoyed corresponding with you, broncofan, I apologise if I caused offence, but I think you're wrong on your analysis of Rand and I think self-styled progressives are too quick to bring the charge of racism]. I was just trying to be objective about it. I even said above I think her problem is more fundamental than racism, and that her racism is a symptom of her broader philosophy [whether or not you think she personally was a racist, you surely agree that she was an individualist and that her characterisation of racism as the oldest form of collectivism is spot on, so to associate her broader philosophy with racism is spurious]."

[Prospero]

No - please offer me your stereotypes about Jewish mothers first....

[an8150]

Ok, only slightly tongue in-cheek: fussy, neurotic, niggly, smothering their sons, constantly worrying...

Happy now?

[Prospero]

ha ha.... are you a smothered Jewish son then?

[an8150]

Me? No, WASP to the core.

Now, as to that obtuseness...

[broncofan]

Ok, only slightly tongue in-cheek: fussy, neurotic, niggly, smothering their sons, constantly worrying...

Happy now?

As a Jewish son, this list almost makes me want to be a Libertarian. So, is the state a fussy, smothering mom. Are we talking Fran Drescher or Barbra Streisand?

Oy an8150, you have to pay your taxes. How come you never call your mother on tax day? Haven't you ever heard of a civic duty? I wish I never named you an8150, it's such a gentile name. How can you grow up and be a Rabbi with a name like an8150? Oy, I think I'm developing a cold.

You see these stereotypes are relatively harmless though. Not all are you know? ;

[broncofan]

I've enjoyed corresponding with you, broncofan, I apologise if I caused offence, but I think you're wrong on your analysis of Rand and I think self-styled progressives are too quick to bring the charge of racism]."

You haven't caused offense. I gave you your only positive votes in here. I thought you brought up some good points. I didn't want to go into what I think would be the failings of the private litigation system in lieu of more formal regulation so I ignored it and gave you a thumbs up. Some good points in that post. There are enforcement problems when you use litigation, particularly torts such as negligence because you encourage willful blindness. Negligence does ask what an individual "should have done" but it does not typically charge them with doing independent research to ensure safety, but asks this question respecting generally available information. So strict liability might be the ticket. But then you only have enforcement after damage is done and companies could set aside a slush fund to essentially pay for the lives of those injured by their products. Prevention is preferable.

You also have detection problems as without the advance research into drugs and products you might not detect risks that could take decades to develop in people. You might not detect them anyway, but I think if businesses only had disgorgement of profits as a consequence you'd see all sorts of reckless behavior. Maybe heightened criminal liability for corporate actors, but again, criminal law doesn't typically require you to ferret out risks, only not to take malevolent action. So, anyhow, good points. Not saying litigation wouldn't work to keep businesses in line but it might be cumbersome to enforce on a case by case basis. Cheers.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=an8150;1231551]
I'd have been better off saying that Israel was surrounded by states committed to its destruction], in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt [not since Camp David in 1978 or 1979]

--the Treaty still stands, it has not been violated by Egypt.

Nothing evasive about Munich [I didn't say there was; I said your description of it as a political act was evasive], if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence [I certainly don't dismiss the Munich atrocity, hence the strength of my reaction to your dismissal of it as akin to a piece of interpretive dance or a letter to a newspaper editor]. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970 [evasive claptrap: the bleak truth it that it was an act of murder, slice it where you like]. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive [not according to you; you categorise it with townhall meetings and million mum marches]

-I don't understand your response: far from being evasive about any aspect of the Munich incident, I was trying to explain it to you in the context in which it developed and took place -that it was an atrocity is not in doubt -the issue is why it happened and what it tells you about the role violence had played in Palestinian politics up to that point, and why it was in this period in the early 1970s that Arafat had difficulty controlling those elements even in his own group, Fateh, who wanted to continue the armed struggle when others wanted to call a halt to it. None of this is 'elusive claptrap' because it was central to the whole trajectory of Palestinian politics at the time; and I thought I was emphatic in describing the violence committed by Palestinian groups as counter-productive -what you are referring to in 'townhall meetings and million mum marches' is beyond me, but you are free to import any weird ideas you have.

I suspect you are not that interested in the history anyway, that you have decided there are good guys and bad guys, that the bad guys lost and should 'go away' somewhere. That doesn't deal with the issues the people who live in the Middle East must cope with every day; nor does it unravel the many different strands of politics that interweave across the region. Ay Rand showed no interest in the history or the politics of the region, she had a decisive view of one set of people rather than another, in spite of the fact that many Israelis then and now have sought a closer and more peaceful relationship with the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general. There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be.