Valid feelings, flawed foundations

[steuard]

The comments on my last post have helped me better understand my reaction to the mosque protests, so I thought I'd promote some of that to a followup post. (But this will be the last one, really!)

First, an important point that I hadn't thought about when writing my last post: whatever their ultimate cause, some people have very real feelings of pain and anger at the thought of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero. Sure, the basis for those feelings is probably an irrational but very human generalization of negative feelings toward "Muslim terrorists" to "all Muslims" (much as I described before), but we all find emotions clouding our logic at times. Looking at it that way, some of my earlier comments were harsher than they ought to have been.

And in fact, I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.

What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem is not of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (to the extent of driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to be Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."

That is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I don't accept the word "offensive" as remotely appropriate in this context). If there is a valid reason to ask that the mosque not be built near Ground Zero, it must be made clear by everyone that even making such a request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project. But I don't think that's the spirit behind these protests. (And backing that up, the NY Times just published an article about opposition to new mosques all over the nation, most in "far less hallowed locations" than the general vicinity of Ground Zero.)


As a final thought, it's important to remember that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too. We have to balance two types of undeniably real pain: the feelings of those for whom Muslims evoke the specter of terror, and the feelings of those innocents who face daily suspicion because of it. I don't know the best way to handle that. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.

False associations like "the terrorists were Muslim, so all Muslims are terrorists" are responsible for some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I think it's healthiest for everyone if we as a society work to recognize and reject them. And that's why I find it so upsetting when public figures who make these statements are taken seriously by society and the media rather than being condemned.

Comments

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Just look at Social Security, which taxes the poor to give retirement benefits to the middle class to see how government programs redistribute in practice rather than in theory.

The most successful of the great society programs? The one which has single-handedly largely solved the problem of extreme poverty among the elderly? Yeah, I think it sucks. No. Wait. The opposite is true. I think it rocks! The only problem, near as I can tell, is that only the first X amount of income is taxed as social security income. That's a stupid loophole for the rich. Other than that, I am a big fan.

Of course the government helps poor people - not enough, and not in the right ways, but it helps them nonetheless. Government help for the poor and government rules are a large part of why poverty in America is distinct (and better than) poverty in, say, Mumbai or the large cities in the -stans. We have a better rule-set, better infrastructure, less corruption, and we have a strong enough safety net that people feel safe in taking risks. Nobody starves to death in the USA. They go hungry sometimes (and that's a bad thing which should be fixed), but starvation is a non-issue. The reason people don't starve to death is, in large part, government programs to prevent starvation. Food stamps, WIC, and many other programs have helped many people and saved many lives. Unfortunately for your point of view, the lives it saved were those of economically unproductive citizens - those people are often still a drain on the system. The question is whether we have a duty to help others not starve simply because they are human and we are human - I say yes, and I have never met a libertarian who says anything other than no.

Government also helps rich people! More than it should, but one of the main reasons for having a civilization is that it allows rich people to keep their toys. Protecting the haves from the have-nots has always been the point of government - that's what rules *are*. Rules don't protect people who have nothing. The amazing thing is not that government helps rich people, but that in America we first figured out how to make it help everyone else some as well.

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

The only problem, near as I can tell, is that only the first X amount of income is taxed as social security income. That's a stupid loophole for the rich. Other than that, I am a big fan.

Nope, that's just part of the problem. Also, it is not means-tested, so the rich get paid. Also, it is based on lifespan, and the poor (particularly the poor & black) live shorter lives. The overall result is that Social Security is a HIDEOUSLY bad deal for poor blacks, who pay much more in taxes than they get in benefits. It's a miserably bad implementation of the desired goal, even if you don't count the whole generational ponzi scheme collapsing under shifting demographics time bomb.

This is an objective fact that economists agree on, not an ideological statement. If we had the goal of "stopping extreme poverty among the elderly", and you submitted Social Security as a proposal, it would get a D.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

The rich getting paid is important if we want to keep the program. It's stupid economics and good politics. You are also correct that it is a bad deal for people who die young. This is why national health care is important - it helps prevent poor people form dying young, and helps correct these imbalances. The "generational ponzi scheme" rhetoric is just dumb, however. This is how it was designed to work, and it is working well. This coming "generational crash" which we have heard so much about? Near as most people can tell, it amounts to about 1 trillion dollars in liabilities. Which is a lot, but not a lot if spread over many years. Medicare is screwed (although less so than before, thanks to Obama says the CBO ), but social security is pretty much solvent.

The bigger issue, however, is that by saying "blacks and the poor die young" you are stating it as if *Social Security* is the problem. The problem is that these people are *dying young*. Let's fix *that*.

As far as I have heard from economists, I have never heard of another proposal which actually provided a guarantee the way social security does. There certainly are ways to make more money. But not any which provide guaranteed security. It's a matter of goals. Social security provides extremely low returns and extremely low variance. This is a *good thing* for a program which is the last resort for many many people. If it gets an economics D, in the absence of a creditable alternative I'll blame the economists. This D-grade program is working well, and looks like it will keep working. Let's keep it.