From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:05:07 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep29.091033.17267@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
    >In article <390nb+-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>Now, YOU back up a minute. I didn';t say the GOAL is bad,
    >>what IS bad is for "society" (i.e., the State) to pursue any
    >>such goals.
    >>
    >Hmmm. Let's revisit (again) what you said:
    >
    >The fourth goal ("encourage toleration for individual
    >differences") is mostly bad. If it is private
    >"encouragement", then I'd say "mind your own business" --
    >proselytizing is bad unless the proseltyzer is a "perfect"
    >person. If it is "State encouragement", then it is of course,
    >coercion and totally bad.

I was too terse. It's like being against drug use. Good idea, because I
don't think using drugs (such as heroin, cocaine, speed, etc.) is such
a great idea. However, the approaches, both public and private are
terrible to merely horrible. Whether it is the War On Drugs of the
Government or the mind-numbing 12-steps type programs, they all are
"bad" in one way or another.

    >You disagree with private encouragement of toleration for
    >differences and also with public encouragement. I'm not sure
    >what is left.

Private encouragement is moral, but it can be in bad taste or worse
(Hare Krishnas in the airports ...).

In other words, the State must clearly stay out of such matters, but I
suspect the motives of individuals. Look at the Politically Correct
fascists now inhabiting (or inhibiting) our college campuses for an
example.


    >But that's OK, you go right ahead and contradict yourself by
    >immediately saying private encouragement is, after all, OK:
    >
    >>It is perfectly O.K. for you and as many people you can get
    >>to agree to say, not buy Acme products because Acme doesn't
    >>hire left-handed Latvians.
    >>
    >Ah, well, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, as
    >Twain said.

Reading carefully is an even worse hobgoblin. One major difference between
myself and most (but not all) net posters is the ability to distinguish
between what I believe is moral and what I believe is O.K.

Whether it is tolerance, lack of tolerance, or being homosexual, those
things are all moral to do/be. But I do not necessarily think that they
are all O.K.

I.e., the general net poster seems to believe that "I, the net poster,
don't like XYZ, so therefore it is wrong, should be illegal, offenders
should be shot ...". I don't think like that.


    >>It is perfectly NOT O.K. for the State, via coercion, to
    >>force Acme to hire left-handed Latvians. The State has no
    >>right (just the might) to make Acme do so -- it violates
    >>Acme's owners FOA.
    >>
    >But you still fail to answer my *SPECIFIC* question. It's
    >amazing that for how much contempt you have for politicians,
    >your answering technique qualifies you with the best running
    >in '92 - that is, when faced with a specific question, grind
    >out the general philosphy.
    >
    >No one here is unclear that your overriding principle is as
    >you have outlined it. I am saying, "OK, lets apply it to some
    >specific situations and see how it plays." Let us say a
    >public school puts into place a policy whereby teachers
    >encourage their students to tolerate individual differences
    >in their fellow students with disabilities. I suppose,
    >according to your precepts, that this is Bad: the public
    >school (the State) is doing the encouraging of toleration of
    >differences, and it is therefore Coercion. Therefore a school
    >policy of this nature is Bad and should not be implemented.
    >
    >Have I erred in applying your principle?

As far as you go, no. The problem is that the "public" school exists.

Since money for the schools is being coerced (taxed) from people, they rightly
feel that they should not pay for ideas to be to taught to their kids that
they disagree with.

The FOA choice of going to another school is not available:

1. The money for a school of choice is already taken (by coercion). A true
   voucher system would help certainly.

2. The State forces a belief monopoly on schools (and on private tutoring
   as well in many states), thus making hard to impossible for some parents
   to have their kids taught as they wish.


So in reality, you have posed an impossible situation -- sort of like
asking how the NAZIs could not be anti-semitic.

A public school system that takes money by coercion with a curriculum
determined by the State will ALWAYS be inherently unfair. The lack of
choice and denial of choice together will cause some to many children to
be "taught" (indoctrinated) against the wishes of their parents.

Note that if we changed to NOT teach tolerance, we'd then be pissing off
a different set of parents.

See what happens when FOA is fucked with?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics