Belle Waring on Autistic Perverts

Comments are closed on this post. I think it is an average Belle Waring post. I am going to comment here. But first I want to discuss the secret (perhaps harmless) invasion of privacy. When I see a young,good looking, energetic, dynamic, positive happy young couple, I often think of what a great time they must have in bed. Is that mental peeping ? Doesn't matter can't help it. But reading Crooked Timber I experience another case of possible undetectable invasion of privacy. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the Waring/Holbo residence. Just think of the conversations they have. And a pony. Anyway, the post includes a description of being stalked. The point is someone argued that an autistic man with a PhD in psychology couldn't have the mens rea to be guilty of possessing child pornography. I want to go off on mens rea (criminal intent -- I can't spell in English and my Latin spelling is correct only by pure chance). It makes a lot of sense if one things the purpose of the justice system is retribution. Some if you think of deterrence. Very little if you think of incapacitation as I do. I believe in locking people up mostly if it is the only way to prevent them from committing crimes (then staffing prisons adequately so they don't commit and be victims of crime while in prison). I consider prison to be collective self defense, not as extreme as war but justified only by need. I also think the idea of retribution is very important to most other people and shapes the justice system. "Justice was done" is a statement about proper retribution. This is highly relevant to the principle that defendents can be not guilty for reason of insanity. An violent insane person is very dangerous (and very rare -- most psychotics are not violent, quite likely to be victims of crimes and not at all likely to commit them). But not really to blame and not a proper subject for retribution. I would prefer a third verdict, guilty and insane (that is insanity as a extenuating factor implying that the proper sentence does not include prison time). I think this is important, because if insane people can't be incarcerated when they do unacceptably violent things which would be crimes with the usual mens rea, then there must be some way to incarcerate them in a residential care facility if they are a danger to themselves or others. Criminal liability makes us free. It means we can do anything which isn't clearly banned by a published law (our responsibility to do due diligence on what is legal -- ignorance of the law is no excuse). If people are protected from criminal liability, they are protected from having the right to do anything which is not specifically forbidden. It's wrong. It is different in non-anglophone countries. It should be changed. People who harm others with no ill intent are dangerous. Collective self defense may require incarceration (in a mental hospital). However, they should have the right to a trial by jury as they are human beings and have human rights. The identification of justice and retribution has made a mess of things, as usual.

Some Atheist Theology

I hope and trust that this won't convince any religious people. I wouldn't want to do that. But I do trust it won't.

This is from a comment thread. I am responding to Dale Coberly who wrote

God may or may not exist. I have no way of knowing. But the existence of evil in the world is not evidence either way. The whole story of Jesus, I think, is meant to illustrate the point that God permits evil to happen to good people but that is not the end of the story. If nothing else, it helps people to not despair when evil happens to them. I would not take that away from them. A good deal more important to them than a rise in GDP.

I don’t want to argue with you either, but I did not mention the existence of evil. I discussed natural disasters. Augustine can argue that only agents with free will can have souls, so God must accept a world with evil. Omnipotence does not mean ability to overrule a logical contradiction. I disagree in many ways (explained below* no character limit in comment threads (or personal blogs))

But that wasn’t my argument. I was discussing natural disasters. The evil, if any, is committed by the tectonic plates which shift. Now I don’t claim this proves there is no God. I can’t help claiming that this proves there is no benevolent God.

Or take the story of Jesus (Jesus’s version). In that story, Jesus isn’t an aspect of God but a son of God (notably so is everyone else, in the gospels Jesus never hinted that he was God or a god of a new pagan faith). He must suffer horribly as a scapegoat.

If true, this story would prove that there is not a benevolent omnipotent God. Either God can’t let people into heaven unless Jesus suffers on the Cross (so He is not omnipotent) or he chooses not to (so he is not benevolent and demands suffering of the innocent). If true, the gospels would prove that there is not a benevolent omnipotent God.

Now this is all very simple. Obvious even. The fact that Christian doctrine is full of logical contradictions (I haven’t mentioned that 3>1) has been declared by extremely smart people to be proof that it is a higher more glorious truth than we mere mortals can understand. Faith can trump logic and evidence. It clearly has in this case.

Contra Augustine. I don’t believe we have souls in the sense he used the word (immortal souls) so I disagree fundamentally. But I also don’t agree that we have free will. I think our actions are determined by the laws of physics or truly random as asserted by the laws of physics. The causation can’t start with us. In any case, I don’t believe in human free will. But finally, he is talking about evil not un-necessary suffering. That wasn’t my topic at all.

Now you say that religious belief is a very good thing (even if the beliefs do not correspond to reality). I agree entirely. Not being a Christian I disagree with his claim that the truth will set us free. It’s just the truth and sometimes it’s better to believe other things. Fine. Agreed. Religion can be a very good thing and often is. Something to be cherished. But it is also false.

Milton Friedman and the Keynesians Not an Old English Folk Tale

I wrote a post with this title which is poor, solitary, nasty, and long.

the bottom line is I say Friedman was always a Keynesian except for his insistence that the effect of the nominal interest rate on money demand is more or less pretty much negligible. This means that I argue that he differed from Keynes because he was a monetarist. In the 80s the difference between monetarists and Keynesians (which always was a matter of a paremeter estimate and not any fundamental disagreement) was dwarfed by the difference between them and the fresh water new classical ratexians. But the point, if any of the rant is that Friedman is determined not to be trapped among the Keynesians and that he bases his efforts fundamentally on the importance of i.

The failed aim was to introduce the following modified children's story in which an innocent red hen which happens to be red is rejected by red haters who can't admit that they agree with non conservatives. This post is very pointless too (Especially to people not told the story when they were children).

“Who will prime the pump?”

But Friedman said, “Not i,”

she ran about calling briskly: “Who will cut the tax?”

Friedman said, “Not i,”

“Who will press demand?”

But Freidman, with a grunt, said, “Not i,”

“Who will demand the Wheat on the market to be sold?”

Turning his back with snippy glee, Friedman said, “Not i,”

“Who will make some bread?”

Milt said "Not i"

Milton Friedman and the Keynesians

Brad DeLong noted that new Keynesians are actually Friedmanites. On all points where 1960s Keynesians disagreed with Friedman, they concede. The fusion of Keynesians and Monetarists would seem odd to anyone who can't conceive of real business cycle theory (really anyone who can't conceive of a human being taking real busines cycle theory seriously, that is, all normal human beings and most economists). Paul Krugman notes a return of Paleo Keynesians. Then discuses it more.

By the way, Krugman's link to DeLong doesn't work any more The Washington Center for Equitable Growth returns a 404 error. I went to Krugman to get the link to Brad, noted Krugman said brilliant things (no surprise) *and* that his link is rotten (that's news).

I'm going to get to the point soon but I have to discuss Krugman now.

Oh boy this introduction ran away from me. I am going to put the whole rant after the jump. the bottom line is I say Friedman was always a Keynesian except for his insistence that the effect of the nominal interest rate on money demand is more or less pretty much negligible. This means that I argue that he differed from Keynes because he was a monetarist. In the 80s the difference between monetarists and Keynesians (which always was a matter of a paremeter estimate and not any fundamental disagreement) was dwarfed by the difference between them and the fresh water new classical ratexians. But the point, if any of the rant is that Friedman is determined not to be trapped among the Keynesians and that he bases his efforts fundamentally on the importance of i.