53 unchanged lines collapsedBecause he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people”. He’s lying, whether he realizes it or not. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]. The value of math, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption.” (Link removed.) Caplan might as well be saying: ‘I’m all for the liberation of children, but I do not believe they should be liberated to the point they don’t have to domath!’↵ ↵ Whatmath!’↵ ↵ If you called Cooper out on his mistake, he would deny it and repeat that he’s “all for the national advancement of colored people […]”. Similarly, if you called out Caplan, he might argue that he’s already pointed out his strong presumption against paternalism. Now, what if Cooper felt guilt over his error? Not remorse, and without correcting it or recognizing it as an error, but guilt: the kind of guilt that demands others repeat the error so it can hide in a sea of evil and say: ‘I’m not the worst of them.’ For whom would you feel sympathy – for him or for the black employee whose career he hindered?And dependingDepending on your answer, whom would you encourage and whom would youbetray?↵ ↵ *Maddiscourage?↵ ↵ *Mad Men* highlights even more than that. While virtually all of the show’s viewers recognize the horror in how black people were treated back then, viewers fail to see that same horror in how our treatment of children has *not* meaningfully changed since. I suspect it’s not something the creators of the show intended to convey – but theydid,did convey it, tosome.a small minority. Inseveralcertain ways, black people were better off even in the 1960s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal – title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination based on race at the workplace – but there is no law against forced education of children to this day. On the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law *demands* such force. [Even the UN demands it.](/posts/the-right-to-education-is-bad) In addition, I understand that psychological and scientific ‘findings’ justifying segregation were receding by the 1960s, yet Caplan references both psychology and medical science to justify – and pawn off responsibility for – his desire to deny children freedom. Also, Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good, whereas Caplan does just that when it comes to children.3 unchanged lines collapsedCaplan writes about children: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math. No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” This isn’t just offensive to children, butevento*mathematicians:**mathematicians* as well: to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. He says himself that he has “never really liked” the “piles” – piles! – of math he has done. Clearly, this has been a torturous experience for him, so why should the next generation be spared this coercion? Worse, he implies that some amount of force is warranted to impose his edict on children since he won’t let them disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Withholding love and affection? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated, as philosopher Ayn Rand explains:6 unchanged lines collapsedFreedom is indivisible and absolute. It allows no compromises whatsoever. You cannotbalance‘balance’ freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan makes the error of ‘balancing’, ie compromisingonon, basic principles. Rand identified thateven[even the smallest compromise on basic principlesor in moral mattersis a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html):2 unchanged lines collapsed> If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in awhile?↵ ↵ Anwhile?↵ ↵ In Rand’s example, the basic principle is honesty: an honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man.AThe basic principle for our purposes, the one Caplan wishes to ‘balance’ against serfdom to utility, productivity, and career options, is freedom: a free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. Such are the ‘compromising’ effects of mixed premises andmixed‘balanced’ contradictory principles. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom – not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. After all, the reasoning behind abolition was *not* that free men are more productive than slaves (although usually they are). Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all. Like abolition + picking crops, Caplan’s rotten concept “Unschooling + Math” is a textbook example of mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. Caplan makes the same old mistake of striking a ‘balance’ between good and evil and making himself look reasonable in the process. He dresses up this alleged balance using, again, the term “keyhole solution” and derides the principled, uncompromising stance toward freedom as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but *right?*4 unchanged lines collapsed
53 unchanged lines collapsed
Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people”. He’s lying, whether he realizes it or not. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]. The value of math, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption.” (Link removed.) Caplan might as well be saying: ‘I’m all for the liberation of children, but I do not believe they should be liberated to the point they don’t have to do math!’
If you called Cooper out on his mistake, he would deny it and repeat that he’s “all for the national advancement of colored people […]”. Similarly, if you called out Caplan, he might argue that he’s already pointed out his strong presumption against paternalism. Now, what if Cooper felt guilt over his error? Not remorse, and without correcting it or recognizing it as an error, but guilt: the kind of guilt that demands others repeat the error so it can hide in a sea of evil and say: ‘I’m not the worst of them.’ For whom would you feel sympathy – for him or for the black employee whose career he hindered? Depending on your answer, whom would you encourage and whom would you discourage?
Mad Men highlights even more than that. While virtually all of the show’s viewers recognize the horror in how black people were treated back then, viewers fail to see that same horror in how our treatment of children has not meaningfully changed since. I suspect it’s not something the creators of the show intended to convey – but they did convey it, to a small minority. In certain ways, black people were better off even in the 1960s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal – title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination based on race at the workplace – but there is no law against forced education of children to this day. On the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law demands such force. Even the UN demands it. In addition, I understand that psychological and scientific ‘findings’ justifying segregation were receding by the 1960s, yet Caplan references both psychology and medical science to justify – and pawn off responsibility for – his desire to deny children freedom. Also, Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good, whereas Caplan does just that when it comes to children.
3 unchanged lines collapsed
Caplan writes about children: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math. No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” This isn’t just offensive to children, but to mathematicians as well: to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. He says himself that he has “never really liked” the “piles” – piles! – of math he has done. Clearly, this has been a torturous experience for him, so why should the next generation be spared this coercion? Worse, he implies that some amount of force is warranted to impose his edict on children since he won’t let them disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Withholding love and affection? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated, as philosopher Ayn Rand explains:
6 unchanged lines collapsed
Freedom is indivisible and absolute. It allows no compromises whatsoever. You cannot ‘balance’ freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan makes the error of ‘balancing’, ie compromising on, basic principles. Rand identified that even the smallest compromise on basic principles is a complete surrender:
2 unchanged lines collapsed
If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?
In Rand’s example, the basic principle is honesty: an honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man. The basic principle for our purposes, the one Caplan wishes to ‘balance’ against serfdom to utility, productivity, and career options, is freedom: a free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. Such are the ‘compromising’ effects of mixed premises and ‘balanced’ contradictory principles. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom – not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. After all, the reasoning behind abolition was not that free men are more productive than slaves (although usually they are). Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all. Like abolition + picking crops, Caplan’s rotten concept “Unschooling + Math” is a textbook example of mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. Caplan makes the same old mistake of striking a ‘balance’ between good and evil and making himself look reasonable in the process. He dresses up this alleged balance using, again, the term “keyhole solution” and derides the principled, uncompromising stance toward freedom as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but right?
4 unchanged lines collapsed