Tis the season......for doing teshuvah, that is. We are currently in the middle of the Days of Awe, the period between between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in which Jews are to make up for inadequacies, ask where we are right now, and where we're going. It is the epitome of spiritual introspection and awareness in the Jewish religion. One aspect is to atone for wrongs committed in the previous year. How do we go about that in Judaism? By doing teshuvah. I would surmise that there are many that think that making up for one's mistakes simply means saying "sorry." Simply saying "sorry" is not teshuvah. Well, why not? You've recognized your wrongdoing. You feel a sense of remorse. You even muster the courage to confront the person you have wronged and you utter the words "I wronged you" and "I am sorry." Why isn't it enough to simply say "sorry"?
Let's start with a simple question: How do I know you're sorry? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Let's take an example that is unfortunately all too common: domestic abuse. An individual beats their spouse. The abuser says "I am sorry," but returns to abusive behavior shortly thereafter. What good does saying "I am sorry" do when your fist is still striking the person you supposedly care about? We don't even need to go to such extremes to realize that superficially saying "sorry" is all too commonplace. The individual expresses remorse, but reverts right back to the same behavior. The words "I am sorry" go from being a step in truly making up for one's misdeeds to becoming a social nicety.
Yes, it is absolutely true that confronting the person who has been wronged is a step in the teshuvah process, but it sure isn't the last step. If you stop at saying "I am sorry," you haven't truly mended your ways. You have simply absconded from taking any responsibility from your actions. If you are truly sorry, you will end up doing two things: 1) doing your utmost to undo the damage done, and 2) working on not committing the same shortcoming. What does this look like in practice?
It depends on whether you have wronged G-d or another human being. According to the Mishnah (Yoma 8:9), "For sins between man and G-d (e.g., eating non-kosher food), Yom Kippur atones." Although that might sound easy, it's really not so much because remember, G-d is omniscient, so He will know if you are lying or not. Looking at the rest of the Yoma 8:9, it's even more difficult if you have wronged another human being because "Yom Kippur does not atone until you have appeased one's fellow" (ibid). After you have said "I am sorry," you have to recompense the individual who was wronged. For instance, if one stole or defrauded, that individual has to return the stolen goods and then some. Even if the damage has been undone, the offense is not forgiven until he asks for the victim's pardon (Bava Kamma 8:7). This does imply that even if the victim forgave you without you apologizing, you still have to verbally confess. Why? Because it's not simply about undoing the wrong done. It is about transforming oneself in the process.
That is why the final step of teshuvah is working like mad to make sure you don't commit the same offense again. How do we know the penitent is resolute in re-committing the shortcoming? "If the opportunity to commit the same sin presents itself on two occasions and the sinner does not yield to it (Talmud, Yoma 86b)." I don't think the Talmud literally meant after two times, because "What if you do it again after being tempted for a third time?" Rather, there is some sort of tangible action to illustrate that one is serious in not screwing up in that fashion for yet another time (Lechem Mishneh on Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva 2:2). Another way we can show our repentance is by taking that particular shortcoming and running in the opposite direction by doing good (Sha'arei Teshuvah 1:35). For instance, if one were previously a terrible gossiper, they should not only study the laws of Jewish speech ethics, but also put that into action and work on speaking words of loving-kindness. If it's too much to go in the opposite direction in this particular shortcoming at the moment, then increase your good deeds in other areas until you can improve upon the shortcoming (Maimonides, MT, "Laws of Repentance," 2:4).
Talk is cheap unless you back it up with action. Teshuvah comes from the Hebrew word lishuv, which means "to return [to one's good self]." The beauty of this time of year is that we are not pawns of the gods or subject to "what fate has in store for us." Although it comes with its fair share of obstacles, we have the power to make ourselves into better human beings. The time is upon us to change for the better. Are you up for the challenge?
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Monday, September 29, 2014
Does Sparing the Rod Spoil the Child, and Should Corporal Punishment Be Outlawed?
"He who spares the rod hates his son." -Proverbs 13:24.
"Spare the rod, spoil the child" is something that Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson allegedly believes in, and it's getting him in trouble due to child abuse allegations. The Peterson scandal has caused the debate on corporal punishment and striking children back to the forefront. From a Jewish standpoint, parents are supposed to love their children and really not supposed to use physical discipline like spanking. Not only does this make sense when reading the rest of the verse that says "and he who loves his son will chastise him [without striking him] (ואהבו שחרו מוסר)," but even the "rod" mentioned in the first part of Proverbs 13:24 is meant to be taken as a metaphor for "tough love." Even with that being said, I would like to ask whether corporal punishment is effective, and if not, whether we should ban it.
The idea behind corporal punishment is that children need discipline, order, and structure. One of the ways of making children behave properly, especially when their behavior is atrocious, is the occasional striking or spanking, say the proponents of corporal punishment. As much as proponents think that spanking or paddling brings the child in line, the vast majority of academic literature is clear in showing the evidence of the negative side effects of corporal punishment (Gershoff, 2002). Negative results of corporal punishment include lowering one's IQ (Durrant and Ensom, 2012), increasing aggressive behavior (Taylor et al., 2010), altering brain development (Tomoda et al., 2009), creating greater risk for criminal behavior (Gershoff, 2013), as well as increasing the likelihood of personality disorders, mood disorders, and substance abuse (Afifi et al., 2012; Teicher et al., 2011). The American Psychological Association is against it, as are the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Corporal punishment does not provide the disciplining that proponents desire, which is the primary argument for permitting it. There are currently 39 countries that ban all forms of corporal punishment, as well as 19 states that ban it in schools, and you haven't seen crime rates spiral out of control as a result. If corporal punishment is so terrible, should the government ban it from being used as a parenting technique? First, there is the possibility that the negative effects of corporal punishment are merely correlative. Given all the studies out there, the argument is a tad tenuous, but I will let that be for you to decide. Second, and more to the point, the frequency, severity, and type of corporal punishment all play a role in the magnitude of the damage it can cause. To analogize, if someone tries a cigarette once in their life or has a single cigarette a year, it will cause a lot less damage than someone who smokes two packs a day or smokes cigars. It would be nice to see if there is any variance when these factors are accounted for. This brings us to the question of whether the slightest amount of corporal punishment is tantamount to child abuse or if there is a certain amount and/or magnitude that would constitute as child abuse. It is more believable that a one-time, light tap on the child's rear end will have a much less detrimental effect than painful belting or paddling that becomes part of the parent's routine. A parent who does the former had a one-time, minor relapse, whereas the latter is committing a form of domestic abuse, and should be punished accordingly.
I have four issues when it comes to banning corporal punishment. The first is ideological. Unless the abuse is particularly heinous (e.g., the corporal punishment is both severe and become a habit), I am not going to want to step in and tell parents how to parent. There are people who think same-sex parenting, vaccinating children, or circumcising baby boys is objectionable. Their objections wouldn't be based in facts, but it would be their prerogative as a parent. There are certain parenting methods with which one disagrees, such as single-parent parenting. I personally think there are a lot of people who are not ready to be parents, and shouldn't reproduce in the first place. If I were in a position where I could let my high standards legally define what constitutes as "good parents," there would hardly be any parents out there. There are always going to be lousy parents out there. We cannot save every child from having a lousy upbringing. We should prosecute when the cases are severe, especially since state budgets have experienced budget cuts over the past few years, and let the infrequent and relatively non-malign offenders do their thing. This brings me to my second point, which is how in the world would you enforce this law? If you ban teachers spanking a child in school, that's easier to enforce. To have it illegal in homes would require an Orwellian intrusion of government putting cameras in homes. Even if Americans were willing to sacrifice their sense of privacy, which is doubtful in the first place, who is going to monitor all these homes? And if we are going to be on the watch for corporal punishment, what else should the government define as "good parenting?" Perhaps the mere legality of the ban could deter corporal punishment, but again, we should prosecute the egregious cases only. Third goes to political feasibility. In an American context, how could we pass a law against corporal punishment when it has an 81 percent approval rate? Fourth has to do with efficacy. If Prohibition, the War on Drugs, or making it illegal to sell one's kidneys have taught us anything, it is that downright, blanket prohibitions are ineffective, and have the uncanny propensity to make things worse.
The evidence shows that corporal punishment does not do any favors for the child, and most probably makes things worse for the child. We need to have a discussion on better parenting techniques and how parents can learn positive reinforcement so they do not have to resort to corporal punishment. Although I will leave that discussion for another time, what I do want to say is that in spite of my opposition to corporal punishment, it is I believe that the government cannot and should not police parenting like in the form of an enforceable ban on corporal punishment.
11-7-2014 Addendum: The Brookings Institution just put out quite the policy memo on why corporal punishment doesn't work.
4-27-2016 Addendum: A meta-analysis of 75 studies covering the span of 50 years was recently released by the Universities of Michigan and Texas at Austin, and it concludes that it a) does nothing to improve behavior in the short-term, and b) is detrimental in the long-term.
"Spare the rod, spoil the child" is something that Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson allegedly believes in, and it's getting him in trouble due to child abuse allegations. The Peterson scandal has caused the debate on corporal punishment and striking children back to the forefront. From a Jewish standpoint, parents are supposed to love their children and really not supposed to use physical discipline like spanking. Not only does this make sense when reading the rest of the verse that says "and he who loves his son will chastise him [without striking him] (ואהבו שחרו מוסר)," but even the "rod" mentioned in the first part of Proverbs 13:24 is meant to be taken as a metaphor for "tough love." Even with that being said, I would like to ask whether corporal punishment is effective, and if not, whether we should ban it.
The idea behind corporal punishment is that children need discipline, order, and structure. One of the ways of making children behave properly, especially when their behavior is atrocious, is the occasional striking or spanking, say the proponents of corporal punishment. As much as proponents think that spanking or paddling brings the child in line, the vast majority of academic literature is clear in showing the evidence of the negative side effects of corporal punishment (Gershoff, 2002). Negative results of corporal punishment include lowering one's IQ (Durrant and Ensom, 2012), increasing aggressive behavior (Taylor et al., 2010), altering brain development (Tomoda et al., 2009), creating greater risk for criminal behavior (Gershoff, 2013), as well as increasing the likelihood of personality disorders, mood disorders, and substance abuse (Afifi et al., 2012; Teicher et al., 2011). The American Psychological Association is against it, as are the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Corporal punishment does not provide the disciplining that proponents desire, which is the primary argument for permitting it. There are currently 39 countries that ban all forms of corporal punishment, as well as 19 states that ban it in schools, and you haven't seen crime rates spiral out of control as a result. If corporal punishment is so terrible, should the government ban it from being used as a parenting technique? First, there is the possibility that the negative effects of corporal punishment are merely correlative. Given all the studies out there, the argument is a tad tenuous, but I will let that be for you to decide. Second, and more to the point, the frequency, severity, and type of corporal punishment all play a role in the magnitude of the damage it can cause. To analogize, if someone tries a cigarette once in their life or has a single cigarette a year, it will cause a lot less damage than someone who smokes two packs a day or smokes cigars. It would be nice to see if there is any variance when these factors are accounted for. This brings us to the question of whether the slightest amount of corporal punishment is tantamount to child abuse or if there is a certain amount and/or magnitude that would constitute as child abuse. It is more believable that a one-time, light tap on the child's rear end will have a much less detrimental effect than painful belting or paddling that becomes part of the parent's routine. A parent who does the former had a one-time, minor relapse, whereas the latter is committing a form of domestic abuse, and should be punished accordingly.
I have four issues when it comes to banning corporal punishment. The first is ideological. Unless the abuse is particularly heinous (e.g., the corporal punishment is both severe and become a habit), I am not going to want to step in and tell parents how to parent. There are people who think same-sex parenting, vaccinating children, or circumcising baby boys is objectionable. Their objections wouldn't be based in facts, but it would be their prerogative as a parent. There are certain parenting methods with which one disagrees, such as single-parent parenting. I personally think there are a lot of people who are not ready to be parents, and shouldn't reproduce in the first place. If I were in a position where I could let my high standards legally define what constitutes as "good parents," there would hardly be any parents out there. There are always going to be lousy parents out there. We cannot save every child from having a lousy upbringing. We should prosecute when the cases are severe, especially since state budgets have experienced budget cuts over the past few years, and let the infrequent and relatively non-malign offenders do their thing. This brings me to my second point, which is how in the world would you enforce this law? If you ban teachers spanking a child in school, that's easier to enforce. To have it illegal in homes would require an Orwellian intrusion of government putting cameras in homes. Even if Americans were willing to sacrifice their sense of privacy, which is doubtful in the first place, who is going to monitor all these homes? And if we are going to be on the watch for corporal punishment, what else should the government define as "good parenting?" Perhaps the mere legality of the ban could deter corporal punishment, but again, we should prosecute the egregious cases only. Third goes to political feasibility. In an American context, how could we pass a law against corporal punishment when it has an 81 percent approval rate? Fourth has to do with efficacy. If Prohibition, the War on Drugs, or making it illegal to sell one's kidneys have taught us anything, it is that downright, blanket prohibitions are ineffective, and have the uncanny propensity to make things worse.
The evidence shows that corporal punishment does not do any favors for the child, and most probably makes things worse for the child. We need to have a discussion on better parenting techniques and how parents can learn positive reinforcement so they do not have to resort to corporal punishment. Although I will leave that discussion for another time, what I do want to say is that in spite of my opposition to corporal punishment, it is I believe that the government cannot and should not police parenting like in the form of an enforceable ban on corporal punishment.
11-7-2014 Addendum: The Brookings Institution just put out quite the policy memo on why corporal punishment doesn't work.
4-27-2016 Addendum: A meta-analysis of 75 studies covering the span of 50 years was recently released by the Universities of Michigan and Texas at Austin, and it concludes that it a) does nothing to improve behavior in the short-term, and b) is detrimental in the long-term.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Finding Death Penalty Deterrence Evidence Is Like Finding a Needle in a Haystack
Although there are only a small handful of executions per annum, the death penalty remains a hot-button issue, even with decreasing support. Today, I don't want to get into how many innocent people die on Death Row, ethical qualms with capital punishment, or how your "typical conservative" advocates for the death penalty while claiming to be pro-life or wanting less government in our lives. What I simply want to ask is whether the institution of the death penalty acts as a deterrent for people committing more crimes or not.
It's obvious that deterrence involves the discouragement of a certain act. In this case, one of the goals of the death penalty is to discourage crime, specifically murder. The question here is "Who are we trying to deter?" Are we only trying to deter those who have previously murdered and are currently imprisoned? If so, then the death penalty is very effective as a deterrent. After all, dead men can't commit more acts of murder.
If we are trying to deter society as a whole, then that is a different story all together. In an American context, if I had to guess why the death penalty would not be effective, it would be because it is so infrequently and arbitrarily implemented. Also, with most capital crimes such as these, either the murder was in the heat in the moment or the murderer is so depraved and callous towards human life that nothing will deter the individual.
Any conducted studies that have allegedly found correlation never considered the possibility of noncapital punishment effects on homicide rates. In a 2012 report by the Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, the main finding was that there was no proven deterrent effect that was unique to the death penalty (p. 29). The vast majority of criminologists have also found that the death penalty does not create any additional deterrence that life in prison would create (Radelet and Lacock, 2009).
I have major apprehensions giving the government power over life and death itself. Even if I were going to analyze the death penalty based on consequentialist terms, you better believe that I would like some evidence that the death penalty actually works. This is all the more so true when we are talking about the government curtailing personal liberty. The only thing that we know about the death penalty are its liabilities, not its benefits (Lamperti, 2010). I also have to wonder why one would even use deterrence as a primary argument for the death penalty. If deterrence were a factor, why not televise it so everyone can see it? How about making it long and excruciating as possible so it scares would-be criminals? Why not apply it to other crimes? Not only is the evidence of deterrence lacking, but even if the evidence existed, it would hardly make the death penalty a justifiable practice. There are certainly better alternatives for deterring crime.
It's obvious that deterrence involves the discouragement of a certain act. In this case, one of the goals of the death penalty is to discourage crime, specifically murder. The question here is "Who are we trying to deter?" Are we only trying to deter those who have previously murdered and are currently imprisoned? If so, then the death penalty is very effective as a deterrent. After all, dead men can't commit more acts of murder.
If we are trying to deter society as a whole, then that is a different story all together. In an American context, if I had to guess why the death penalty would not be effective, it would be because it is so infrequently and arbitrarily implemented. Also, with most capital crimes such as these, either the murder was in the heat in the moment or the murderer is so depraved and callous towards human life that nothing will deter the individual.
Any conducted studies that have allegedly found correlation never considered the possibility of noncapital punishment effects on homicide rates. In a 2012 report by the Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, the main finding was that there was no proven deterrent effect that was unique to the death penalty (p. 29). The vast majority of criminologists have also found that the death penalty does not create any additional deterrence that life in prison would create (Radelet and Lacock, 2009).
I have major apprehensions giving the government power over life and death itself. Even if I were going to analyze the death penalty based on consequentialist terms, you better believe that I would like some evidence that the death penalty actually works. This is all the more so true when we are talking about the government curtailing personal liberty. The only thing that we know about the death penalty are its liabilities, not its benefits (Lamperti, 2010). I also have to wonder why one would even use deterrence as a primary argument for the death penalty. If deterrence were a factor, why not televise it so everyone can see it? How about making it long and excruciating as possible so it scares would-be criminals? Why not apply it to other crimes? Not only is the evidence of deterrence lacking, but even if the evidence existed, it would hardly make the death penalty a justifiable practice. There are certainly better alternatives for deterring crime.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Avinu Malkeinu: Balancing G-d's Love and Justice on Rosh Hashanah
As we approach Rosh Hashanah, I think of the awe-inspiring liturgy that we read and sing on the yom tov. My favorite liturgical piece in all of Judaism, which so happens to be read on Rosh Hashanah, is called Avinu Malkeinu (אבינו מלכנו; Our Father). Avinu Malkeinu consists of a long list of supplications that range from good health to prosperity in the upcoming year. At the end of this liturgical piece, we read the following verse, one that has been sung by many Jewish artists:
How do we see this balance struck? We recognize that we have no worthy deeds (כי אין בנו מעשים). No matter how many mitzvahs and good deeds we perform, they will never be enough in comparison to what we could have done. On the other hand, we as mere mortals ask G-d to treat us kindly and recognize our human nature as a mitigating factor, another theme throughout the High Holy liturgy.
Whether we view G-d as an overbearing parent or a more distant one, we want a relationship with G-d similar to one in which we can please our parents. We all stand in rawness of our frailty, mortality, and human limitations while asking ourselves how we can do better for the upcoming year. In essence, Avinu Malkeinu is the way that we connect with transcendent Oneness on an even higher level than normal and remind Him of His mercy on one of the most holy days of the Jewish calendar.
אבינו מלכנו חננו ועננו, כי אין בנו מעשים. עשה עמנו צדקה וחסד והושיענו.
Our Father, our King, be gracious to us and answer, though we have no worthy deeds. Act with us in charity and loving-kindness and save us.
Rabbi Akiva used the Avinu Malkeinu prayer to successfully end a drought (Talmud, Ta'anit 25b), so what is it about this particular verse that is so alluring? In this concise passage do we see a complicated relationship with G-d. On the one hand, we ask G-d to act with charity and loving-kindness, which denotes the love of G-d. Much like a parent (אבינו), G-d shows His children unconditional love. On the other hand, we come before G-d, our King (מלכנו), saying we have no worthy deeds, thereby showing our awe for G-d's transcendent Oneness. Seriously, who are we to plea with G-d? We see this balance in G-d's treatment of humans in general. If G-d had created a world of strict justice, none of us would be here. If G-d created a world with strict love, our ethics, morals, and behavior would mean nothing because G-d would reward all behavior equally, which would be unfair. How does G-d strike a balance? With mercy. Throughout the High Holy Day liturgy, we see this motif surface, and it's evident here.
Whether we view G-d as an overbearing parent or a more distant one, we want a relationship with G-d similar to one in which we can please our parents. We all stand in rawness of our frailty, mortality, and human limitations while asking ourselves how we can do better for the upcoming year. In essence, Avinu Malkeinu is the way that we connect with transcendent Oneness on an even higher level than normal and remind Him of His mercy on one of the most holy days of the Jewish calendar.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Peace vs. Self-Defense: Which Wins in the Jewish Debate on Gun Control?
The Rabbinic Council of America (RCA) issued a statement about how we need gun control to mitigate gun violence. Rather than bite the bullet, a few rabbis broke rank and endorsed a counter-statement saying how self-defense is decidedly a Jewish value. This is another case of "two Jews, three opinions,".....or wait, was that "three Jews, five opinions?" In either case, what we have here are two conflicting values in Judaism. On the one hand, Jews are meant to pursue peace (רודף שלום). On the other hand, we have such an appreciation for life that self-defense is permissible under Jewish law. Irrespective of secular society or debates on the Second Amendment, how does Jewish law view the issue? Are there certain halachically acceptable restrictions on gun ownership? If so, what are they? Can Jews carry guns to protect themselves, even on Shabbat, or would Jews be steering too far away from pursuing peace by doing so?
Let's first mention the idea that peace is a Jewish ideal. It is such an ideal that G-d shows us in Genesis 18 that peace trumps truth. The Talmud (Gittin 59b) says that the entirety of Torah is based on peace. Proverbs 3:17 says that the ways of Torah are those of pleasantness and peace (שלום). In the Talmud (Shabbat 63a), the Sages said it was shameful to carry swords (although if we want to extrapolate that to a modern-day context, it could also apply to guns), and do so based on the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 2:4 of "beating their swords into plowshares."
What Rabbi Eleizer, who was considered one of the greatest rabbis of his generation, pointed out in Shabbat 63a is that we do not live in the Messianic era. As I brought up a couple of weeks ago when analyzing the Torah law of the woman captured in war, we live in an imperfect, messy world that can be downright dark and cruel. We can do our utmost to live according to our ideals, but we also have to remember that we live in a world where there are a lot of people who don't necessarily share our ideals. In spite of democratization, people still commit crimes. From a Jewish view, we have to contend with rising Antisemitism and hate crimes against Jews, not only in America, but on a worldwide level. Until the Messiah arrives, we have to come to terms with the fact that we live in a world that creates situations that necessitate self-defense. Fortunately for us, Judaism unquestionably allows for self-defense. If someone comes to kill you, the Talmud (Berachot 58a) tells you that you "get up earlier to kill that person" (also see Exodus 22:1 and Talmud Sanhedrin 72a). As the aforementioned counter-statement illustrates, not only is being armed a sign of freedom (Exodus 13:8), but Chanukah is essentially a celebration of Jewish self-defense, among other things.
The difficulty with applying Jewish values to twenty-first century society is not only a temporal issue, but also one of political entities and overall legal context. We live in democratic societies. The legal authorities for much of Jewish history have been decentralized and under non-democratic societies. How businesses interact with government and how Jews interact with non-Jews is very different now than it was back then. How much of what is in Jewish law can inform us on how we feel about gun control from a religious standpoint?
Jews are commanded to take such precautions as putting parapets on their roofs because Judaism requires us to have the foresight to prevent dangerous situations (Talmud Baba Kama, 15b), which is a good springboard for discussing the overlap between Jewish values and public policy. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, the laws of pikuach nefesh (preservation of human life) take precedence, even over observing Shabbat laws, which is why carrying a gun on Shabbat for purposes of self-defense is permissible. On the other hand, Judaism does not permit free-for-all gun ownership. You cannot sell firearms to someone you know will commit criminal acts (Talmud, Avodah Zara 15b; Yoreh De'ah 151:5-6). If a gun presents a clear and present danger to you or others, like someone with a severe case of depression and suicidal tendencies and acts as a stumbling block before the blind (per Leviticus 19:14), you cannot own a gun because having dangerous objects around is prohibited by Jewish law (Baba Kamma 15b, 46a, 79a; Choshen Mishpat, 427, 409:3). Since suicidal tendencies are brief, abrupt, and powerful, not to mention that firearm suicide is the most common firearm death, perhaps under the idea of avoiding putting a stumbling block before the blind (lifnei iver), a brief waiting period to acquire a gun to have those tendencies subside isn't the worst policy in the world. If we are worried about enabling criminals to commit more gun-related crimes, we would need to have a serious discussion on "common sense" gun control and whether gun control laws take guns out of criminal hands, do nothing, or exacerbate the situation.
Postscript: I would love to live in a world without violence. However, we cannot live in our idealized version of what we think the world should be like. We need to interact with the world as it is, and go from there to take steps and make it a more peaceful one. Since safety and preventing violence are concerns on both sides of the argument, we need to make sure that whatever it is that whatever were are advocating for or opposing addresses the efficacy of said policies. We as individuals can partake in political activism to engender change in either direction, but halacha ultimately does not have authority over how gun laws are dictated, at least in America. Israel, that is a different story. Regardless, how we personally craft our response to gun violence, self-defense, or gun control should keep Jewish values in mind, as well as how well policies work to actualize those values. What I hope for is that the Messiah comes soon so we don't have to have this argument anymore. However, until that day occurs, I am going to stick to my guns by saying that given the Jewish sources, as well as our current socio-political situation and evidence we have on various forms of gun control, the argument for self-defense is still the one of higher caliber.
Let's first mention the idea that peace is a Jewish ideal. It is such an ideal that G-d shows us in Genesis 18 that peace trumps truth. The Talmud (Gittin 59b) says that the entirety of Torah is based on peace. Proverbs 3:17 says that the ways of Torah are those of pleasantness and peace (שלום). In the Talmud (Shabbat 63a), the Sages said it was shameful to carry swords (although if we want to extrapolate that to a modern-day context, it could also apply to guns), and do so based on the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 2:4 of "beating their swords into plowshares."
What Rabbi Eleizer, who was considered one of the greatest rabbis of his generation, pointed out in Shabbat 63a is that we do not live in the Messianic era. As I brought up a couple of weeks ago when analyzing the Torah law of the woman captured in war, we live in an imperfect, messy world that can be downright dark and cruel. We can do our utmost to live according to our ideals, but we also have to remember that we live in a world where there are a lot of people who don't necessarily share our ideals. In spite of democratization, people still commit crimes. From a Jewish view, we have to contend with rising Antisemitism and hate crimes against Jews, not only in America, but on a worldwide level. Until the Messiah arrives, we have to come to terms with the fact that we live in a world that creates situations that necessitate self-defense. Fortunately for us, Judaism unquestionably allows for self-defense. If someone comes to kill you, the Talmud (Berachot 58a) tells you that you "get up earlier to kill that person" (also see Exodus 22:1 and Talmud Sanhedrin 72a). As the aforementioned counter-statement illustrates, not only is being armed a sign of freedom (Exodus 13:8), but Chanukah is essentially a celebration of Jewish self-defense, among other things.
The difficulty with applying Jewish values to twenty-first century society is not only a temporal issue, but also one of political entities and overall legal context. We live in democratic societies. The legal authorities for much of Jewish history have been decentralized and under non-democratic societies. How businesses interact with government and how Jews interact with non-Jews is very different now than it was back then. How much of what is in Jewish law can inform us on how we feel about gun control from a religious standpoint?
Jews are commanded to take such precautions as putting parapets on their roofs because Judaism requires us to have the foresight to prevent dangerous situations (Talmud Baba Kama, 15b), which is a good springboard for discussing the overlap between Jewish values and public policy. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, the laws of pikuach nefesh (preservation of human life) take precedence, even over observing Shabbat laws, which is why carrying a gun on Shabbat for purposes of self-defense is permissible. On the other hand, Judaism does not permit free-for-all gun ownership. You cannot sell firearms to someone you know will commit criminal acts (Talmud, Avodah Zara 15b; Yoreh De'ah 151:5-6). If a gun presents a clear and present danger to you or others, like someone with a severe case of depression and suicidal tendencies and acts as a stumbling block before the blind (per Leviticus 19:14), you cannot own a gun because having dangerous objects around is prohibited by Jewish law (Baba Kamma 15b, 46a, 79a; Choshen Mishpat, 427, 409:3). Since suicidal tendencies are brief, abrupt, and powerful, not to mention that firearm suicide is the most common firearm death, perhaps under the idea of avoiding putting a stumbling block before the blind (lifnei iver), a brief waiting period to acquire a gun to have those tendencies subside isn't the worst policy in the world. If we are worried about enabling criminals to commit more gun-related crimes, we would need to have a serious discussion on "common sense" gun control and whether gun control laws take guns out of criminal hands, do nothing, or exacerbate the situation.
Postscript: I would love to live in a world without violence. However, we cannot live in our idealized version of what we think the world should be like. We need to interact with the world as it is, and go from there to take steps and make it a more peaceful one. Since safety and preventing violence are concerns on both sides of the argument, we need to make sure that whatever it is that whatever were are advocating for or opposing addresses the efficacy of said policies. We as individuals can partake in political activism to engender change in either direction, but halacha ultimately does not have authority over how gun laws are dictated, at least in America. Israel, that is a different story. Regardless, how we personally craft our response to gun violence, self-defense, or gun control should keep Jewish values in mind, as well as how well policies work to actualize those values. What I hope for is that the Messiah comes soon so we don't have to have this argument anymore. However, until that day occurs, I am going to stick to my guns by saying that given the Jewish sources, as well as our current socio-political situation and evidence we have on various forms of gun control, the argument for self-defense is still the one of higher caliber.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Why a Basic or Guaranteed Income Is Basically Guaranteed to Be Unfeasible and Undesirable
For those of you who didn't know, Europe is wrapping up what is called Basic Income Week. The premise behind this advocacy is to promote the policy of basic income (alternativey the universal basic income, or UBI), which is the system of [unconditionally] providing everyone with a regular sum of money that citizens could survive on. An alternative of a basic income is the guaranteed minimum income (GMI), which is a means-tested form of income, i.e., you need to meet certain eligibility requirements to receive the money. A variant of basic income that has libertarian and conservative support is in the form of the negative income tax (NIT), which was created by Milton Friedman. The United States tried implementing a pared version of the negative income tax that we have come to know as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Other countries have various cash transfer programs that are meant to have a similar effect to that which has already been mentioned. Do any variants of the argument for a minimum income have merit, or is this simply another instance of the government having good intentions, but having lousy results?
Let's start off with what I like about the idea. One is that UBI or GMI are direct cash transfers, which means that bureaucracy and administrative costs are less than under current welfare programs. Do we really need 79 means-tested welfare programs? Consolidate it into one program. We don't need excess and duplicative bureaucracy. Considering how much pension expenditures are driving up state and federal budgets, this is something worth considering. The other aspect that makes GMI an improvement over the status quo is that it is less paternalistic. Yes, the government is still redistributing money, but at least it is not telling you whether you should spend that money on food, health care, rent, or child care. The idea of letting the individual choose how to spend money rather than the government dictate it through various welfare programs has libertarian appeal.
It sounds nice on paper. How do we deal with it, though, when we actually start implementing it? Should everyone receive this minimum income? Are there conditions in which one's minimum could be revoked? Committing a felony comes to mind as an example. So does making stupid and poor life decisions for which others should not be held financially responsible. Also, how big should we make this basic income? What is defined as "basic?" Food, clothing, and shelter? Should it be adjusted with cost of living? Will this basic income be based on the number of members in a given household, or should it be allocated on a person-by-person basis? Even if we were to cap the NIT at the federal poverty line [of $11.7K], it would still cost $600B per annum, begging the question "From where will we get the money?"
Much like with unemployment insurance, there is also the question of how it affects labor markets. There have been few studies done in places like Canada, the United States, and Uganda, but the data are so sparse that they render the current studies inconclusive. Even with what we do have, there is a small effect on disincentivizing work, but even that effect was minimal. Conversely, with a decreasing labor force participation rate, perhaps we don't want policy that discourages work. Furthermore, I still do have a concern about how idleness can affect well-being (e.g., what happens when people win the lottery or come by a sizeable inheritance?). Retired individuals would use the off-time wisely, and I am sure there are non-elderly individuals who could, as well. However, for the vast majority of working-age individuals, work brings a sense of purpose and focus, something which could go by the wayside if basic income has statistically significant deleterious effects on the labor markets.
Also, what do we do about current welfare programs? When laissez faire economists such as Milton Friedman or Charles Murray suggest implementing a negative income tax, they see that being accomplished while simultaneously dismantling welfare programs. If a NIT is merely going to supplement the current welfare programs, then I am decidedly against it. Replacing welfare programs like SNAP or TANF with an NIT is a prerequisite to achieving fiscal efficiency. Otherwise, you're just creating a more aggrandized, bloated welfare state. Much like I brought up with the EITC, you need to also address the double-digit rate of fraud that currently exists. If you can decrease fraud and change the in-kind transfers to direct cash transfers, I would be more amenable to a basic income. However, as current political feasibility stands, especially with rent-seeking, I currently cannot support such a policy at this time. Even if it were politically feasible and you made such modifications as a work requirement or cashifying current programs, it doesn't directly address one of the primary issues in today's labor market. Since labor markets are demanding more high-skilled labor than in the past, what we should be focusing on is education and vocational public policy to provide low-skilled labor with more marketable skills. By finding a way to provide relevant skills to various workers, we would do a better job of addressing the issue instead of exacerbating the income inequality that the Left gripes about so often.
5-13-2015 Addendum: The Cato Institute recently published a nice pro/con guide on the guaranteed income.
9-3-2017 Addendum: The Left-leaning Roosevelt Institute released a study modeling what BUI would look like. Their conclusion is that it would boost the economy by a few trillion. This, of course, is not without controversy.
Let's start off with what I like about the idea. One is that UBI or GMI are direct cash transfers, which means that bureaucracy and administrative costs are less than under current welfare programs. Do we really need 79 means-tested welfare programs? Consolidate it into one program. We don't need excess and duplicative bureaucracy. Considering how much pension expenditures are driving up state and federal budgets, this is something worth considering. The other aspect that makes GMI an improvement over the status quo is that it is less paternalistic. Yes, the government is still redistributing money, but at least it is not telling you whether you should spend that money on food, health care, rent, or child care. The idea of letting the individual choose how to spend money rather than the government dictate it through various welfare programs has libertarian appeal.
It sounds nice on paper. How do we deal with it, though, when we actually start implementing it? Should everyone receive this minimum income? Are there conditions in which one's minimum could be revoked? Committing a felony comes to mind as an example. So does making stupid and poor life decisions for which others should not be held financially responsible. Also, how big should we make this basic income? What is defined as "basic?" Food, clothing, and shelter? Should it be adjusted with cost of living? Will this basic income be based on the number of members in a given household, or should it be allocated on a person-by-person basis? Even if we were to cap the NIT at the federal poverty line [of $11.7K], it would still cost $600B per annum, begging the question "From where will we get the money?"
Much like with unemployment insurance, there is also the question of how it affects labor markets. There have been few studies done in places like Canada, the United States, and Uganda, but the data are so sparse that they render the current studies inconclusive. Even with what we do have, there is a small effect on disincentivizing work, but even that effect was minimal. Conversely, with a decreasing labor force participation rate, perhaps we don't want policy that discourages work. Furthermore, I still do have a concern about how idleness can affect well-being (e.g., what happens when people win the lottery or come by a sizeable inheritance?). Retired individuals would use the off-time wisely, and I am sure there are non-elderly individuals who could, as well. However, for the vast majority of working-age individuals, work brings a sense of purpose and focus, something which could go by the wayside if basic income has statistically significant deleterious effects on the labor markets.
Also, what do we do about current welfare programs? When laissez faire economists such as Milton Friedman or Charles Murray suggest implementing a negative income tax, they see that being accomplished while simultaneously dismantling welfare programs. If a NIT is merely going to supplement the current welfare programs, then I am decidedly against it. Replacing welfare programs like SNAP or TANF with an NIT is a prerequisite to achieving fiscal efficiency. Otherwise, you're just creating a more aggrandized, bloated welfare state. Much like I brought up with the EITC, you need to also address the double-digit rate of fraud that currently exists. If you can decrease fraud and change the in-kind transfers to direct cash transfers, I would be more amenable to a basic income. However, as current political feasibility stands, especially with rent-seeking, I currently cannot support such a policy at this time. Even if it were politically feasible and you made such modifications as a work requirement or cashifying current programs, it doesn't directly address one of the primary issues in today's labor market. Since labor markets are demanding more high-skilled labor than in the past, what we should be focusing on is education and vocational public policy to provide low-skilled labor with more marketable skills. By finding a way to provide relevant skills to various workers, we would do a better job of addressing the issue instead of exacerbating the income inequality that the Left gripes about so often.
5-13-2015 Addendum: The Cato Institute recently published a nice pro/con guide on the guaranteed income.
9-3-2017 Addendum: The Left-leaning Roosevelt Institute released a study modeling what BUI would look like. Their conclusion is that it would boost the economy by a few trillion. This, of course, is not without controversy.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Obamacare Doesn't Reduce Health Care Premiums. It Is Going to Drive Them Up...Big Surprise!
The rise in health care costs has been a concern for many Americans. One of the reasons that Obamacare was legislated because it was the proponents' intent to contain health care costs. With a name like "the Affordable Care Act," you would expect health care to be more affordable, right? Not so much, especially when you think about it from an economic standpoint. Under Obamacare, insurance companies are legally obligated to provide insurance to all that apply for insurance under Obamacare, and the law also mandates that everyone purchase health insurance. Since the law does not address providing more doctors, hospitals, or medical equipment, what these provisions do, at least according to textbook microeconomic theory, is increase the demand for health insurance, thereby increasing health care prices. It should go without saying that proponents would like to ignore this, or simply hope that the government can miraculously contain prices. Will Obamacare actually succeed in keeping health care costs low, or will economic theory be correct in predicting the increase in health care premiums?
On the one hand, it can be tricky predicting actuarial forecast. Premiums vary from individual to individual, and given the wide variance of health insurance laws, they also will vary from state to state. Some will see their premiums increase, others will see them decrease. A lot of it depends on one's demographics, particularly since Obamacare redistributes risk from the more elderly and/or infirmed individuals to younger and/or healthier ones. In spite of that nuance, what inquiring minds would like to know is whether the overall trend going to increase or decrease as a result of Obamacare. This is where looking at studies comes into play.
Price WaterhouseCoopers recently aggregated data from ACA state exchanges. Although PWC was unable to collect data from all states, as of August 27, the average increase in premiums was 7 percent. The Manhattan Institute did a county-by-county study to find that the premium increases would be much higher, i.e., roughly 41 percent. Kaiser Foundation published a report about the premium charges for silver versus bronze plans, and its findings were less unpleasant than those of the Manhattan Institute. Silver plans shows a modest decrease. Those on the bronze plan, which I assume is for those who can't afford nicer plans, will see a larger spike in health care premiums. I'm sure proponents will take the decrease of 0.8 percent in the silver plans (see below) as a win for Obamacare.
Obamacare proponents want to see a decrease in premiums. It was one of the promises they made in order to pass the legislation. If Obamacare does not keep costs down, it will be one of those "I told you so" moments that unfortunately harms Americans. Can the decrease in health care premiums in recent years be attributed to Obamacare? The answer to that is a resounding "No!" The Office of the Actuary in the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services projects health care costs on an annual basis. The most recent projections (see summary here) makes for interesting reading, all the more so since this is a bureaucratic agency under the Obama administration. Here were the takeaways from their findings verbatim:
On the one hand, it can be tricky predicting actuarial forecast. Premiums vary from individual to individual, and given the wide variance of health insurance laws, they also will vary from state to state. Some will see their premiums increase, others will see them decrease. A lot of it depends on one's demographics, particularly since Obamacare redistributes risk from the more elderly and/or infirmed individuals to younger and/or healthier ones. In spite of that nuance, what inquiring minds would like to know is whether the overall trend going to increase or decrease as a result of Obamacare. This is where looking at studies comes into play.
Price WaterhouseCoopers recently aggregated data from ACA state exchanges. Although PWC was unable to collect data from all states, as of August 27, the average increase in premiums was 7 percent. The Manhattan Institute did a county-by-county study to find that the premium increases would be much higher, i.e., roughly 41 percent. Kaiser Foundation published a report about the premium charges for silver versus bronze plans, and its findings were less unpleasant than those of the Manhattan Institute. Silver plans shows a modest decrease. Those on the bronze plan, which I assume is for those who can't afford nicer plans, will see a larger spike in health care premiums. I'm sure proponents will take the decrease of 0.8 percent in the silver plans (see below) as a win for Obamacare.
Obamacare proponents want to see a decrease in premiums. It was one of the promises they made in order to pass the legislation. If Obamacare does not keep costs down, it will be one of those "I told you so" moments that unfortunately harms Americans. Can the decrease in health care premiums in recent years be attributed to Obamacare? The answer to that is a resounding "No!" The Office of the Actuary in the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services projects health care costs on an annual basis. The most recent projections (see summary here) makes for interesting reading, all the more so since this is a bureaucratic agency under the Obama administration. Here were the takeaways from their findings verbatim:
- Health care spending growth for 2013 is projected to have remained slow at 3.6 percent due to the modes economic recovery, the impacts of sequestration and continued slow growth in the utilization of Medicare services, and continued increases in cost-sharing requirements for the privately insured.
- Improving economic conditions, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage expansions, and the aging of the population, drive faster projected growth in health spending in 2014 and beyond.
- Health spending is projected to be 19.3 percent of GDP by 2023, up from 17.2 percent in 2012.
To put these findings in simplest terms, Obamacare has not done anything to keep health care costs down; our less-than-satisfactory economic growth did. What's more is that we are going to see health care costs increase for many Americans, in no small part thanks to Obamacare. This is something the opponents of Obamacare have been saying for a while now. This does not even consider that deductibles and other cost-sharing provisions have also been increasing under Obamacare or that premiums under exchange plans have a smaller increase than initially anticipated is due to "narrower networks of providers and tighter management of subscribers' use of health care than employment-based plans do (CBO, 2014, p. 7)." These latest findings only confirm the extent to which the government royally screws up with health care costs and provisions. Rather than give the government control of something as vital and essential as our own health care, we should frame the conversation in terms of how to have less government in our health care decisions, not more.
10-28-2014 Addendum: In case you needed more proof that Obamacare is driving up premiums, here is a study from the non-partisan, health insurance organization called HealthPocket showing double-digit health care premium increases.
10-28-2014 Addendum: In case you needed more proof that Obamacare is driving up premiums, here is a study from the non-partisan, health insurance organization called HealthPocket showing double-digit health care premium increases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)