Notices by frustrated_academic (frustrated_academic@mastodon.social)

@ThinkIsrael I want to be very clear: I do not advocate violence in any context other than defense of self or others from immediate violence, if there is no other feasible option, and even then only either up to the level of violence responded to or whatever is necessary to create another option, whichever is lower.

But I think Jews need to start thinking seriously about learning self defense and carrying whatever self defense tools are legal in your area

@AbuMubarak @ThinkIsrael We're talking about attacks on individual Jewish people, far from Israel. Not about the Israel-Hamas conflict. Attacks which will not help bring that conflict to a close even one moment faster, and are often motivated by antisemitism.

Please do not conflate these two very different things. And if you are incapable of distinguishing an individual Jewish person from the actions of the State of Israel, then you are the one who needs to change.

@jcast I'm sorry you got a backlash for this. I'm sure your intent was not antisemitic, but as I'm sure you've noticed Israel tends to be a bit of a sore spot with Jews for a range of reasons, especially at the moment as I'm sure you can appreciate.

I'm not sure what you could have done better, and like I said I'm sure your intent was good. Just kind of got splashed

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury But let's think about it another way - given the massive push against privacy and increasing criminalisation of speech in a lot of the world (people can and have been arrested for silently praying on the street in the UK, not holding a sign or anything, because there's an abortion center a couple hundred meters down the road), I'm not sure we can assume government is a dramatically better path for ensuring our rights either

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury Some do, some don't, it really depends on the libertarian - it's a very broad school of thought.

Some businesses, if privatised, would run more efficiently, but as you point out that can run into problems. So you might, for example, privatise electricity delivery, but have government oversight to ensure certain levels of performance or delivery, in theory getting the benefits of both. Or not, it's complicated.

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury So I should cut friends out of my life, people who have stood beside me and supported me when I've been seriously struggling and are otherwise generally good people, because they don't donate to pick up the slack where the government has wilfully refused to meet it's basic job? Does that sound like something a good person would do to you?

If you try to generalise the idea it gets really, really hard, really fast

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury I think we can agree that the government (broadly speaking) should do more to ensure the poorer people can meet their basic needs and dignity. We can discuss about how best to do that, but surely that's the main problem here?

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury I also give to charity because I can, and as an individual I believe I have an obligation to help those less fortunate. I see no contradiction between these two positions.

I also have friends who don't give to charity, despite making more. I don't care for that, and try to convince them to give more. Sometimes I succeed, usually I don't. Are you arguing I should be violent towards them?

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury Let me phrase things a different way.

"There are people in the world who do things that I/my tribe don't like. How can I use violence against them to enforce my/our will on them?"

Again, I'm not an anarchist. I think the primary role of government is to ensure a certain minimum level of health/safety for all its citizens, and it regularly fails that, and that implies taxation, which implies at least some violence

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury It's entirely plausible to be both a democracy supporter and a libertarian (e.g. me). It's much harder to be an anarchist and pro-democracy.

If it's not for you, it's not for you. That's fine, you're entitled to your views. My intention is simply to counter your original point that libertarians don't have an answer for the problem of helping the poor.

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury That's a very libertarian argument to make :)

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury Probably could, but now you're talking about enforcing Jewish law on non-Jews, presumably against their will. No matter the religion, that's a dark path.

And if we're talking a universal value, wouldn't people already be doing it?

I would argue we do have pressure to e.g. help the poor, that's why we generally view it as a good thing to do and praise people who do it. It's weaker than I'd like, but it's hardly absent.

But that's a tangent.

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury Also, sideline, providing for the poor is a mitzvah, so maybe a poor choice for an example there. Rambam wrote about this pretty explicitly.

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury That's the difference - if it's voluntary, it's a charity, if it's mandatory it's a tax, and we interpret those very differently (and we should).

If I don't tithe, then nobody will actually force me, I just know I'm not doing the mitzvah, and certain consequences may or may not flow on from that depending on G-d's will. If I don't pay my tax, I will be subject to violence by the State.

These are not the same situation.

@kolev @AlexanderKingsbury That's not charity or tzedkah, that's taxation. And while yes, some libertarians oppose taxation, most do not, although they may quibble on the details like amount or what it's used for, or acknowledging that it's taking someone's property against their will through the use or threat of violence, which changes how we think about it.

"We should have higher taxes!"

vs

"The State should do more extortion!"