How Large is your Penis?

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Defending Rubashkin

This is an issue that was all over Jewish blogs from a half-year to a year ago. I am way too slow about it. I just figured that perhaps Chirstmas is an appropriate time of the year to discuss this, given that I never discussed this case before.

If in the situation you happen to be more news-retarded than me and do not know what the case is about I will briefly mention its contents. Some time ago, not sure when, a Rabbi (I guess he was a Rabbi) who was the head of a Jewish slaughterhouse (I assume that he is a Rabbi because by Jewish law you have to be a Rabbi to be involved in slaughtering) was busted for illegal practices. What where the illegal practices? He hired illegal immigrants (which from now on I will simply refer to as "Mexicans" because they probably were considering that those are the people who work illegally in the US, maybe I am wrong on the kind of people they were, but that is all irrelevant since it is the principles behind this case that is important not the specifics). And he probably (not sure about this but I figure he must have) has hired them in an illegal manner, that is, by not respecting labor laws. I will assume he paid them below minimum wage and other benefits that he suppressed from them. The story ends that this Rabbi got busted for his practices and now was send into jail.

It is pretty clear from above that I am not very knowledgeable on this topic. But that is because I find it as exciting to read about as tuning into an episode on the View. Though this is all irrelevant because we can still discuss the case even if the specifics are slightly mistaken.

From my impression that I seen on discussion forums and blogs nearly every Jew was against Rubaskin. He said that what he did was wrong and he belongs in jail. It even felt like I was in a middle of a two minute hate. Almost unanimously all the Jews hated this guy and wanted him to be in jail. This is very rare on comments sections because some Jews are religious, some are ex-religious, and they generally disagree with one another.

I am not surprised to see that the common response from ex-religious Jews to Rubaskin was hatred towards him and supporting the punishment that was placed upon him. Because for these ex-Jews this story is an example of what is wrong with Judaism. They do not support the morality of Judaism and so they reject its Rabbis. I am not surprised therefore seeing ex-Jews agreeing with the verdict.

The religious Jews also were anti-Rubaskin. But for different reasons. Some Jews felt that Rubaskin portrayed the Jewish world in a terrible manner (as he did) and for that he must pay. Other Jews also had a reason to bend over backwards. They wanted to show themselves and say in an implicit manner that even though they are Jewish they are not going to defend another Jewish guy.

These are just my psychological evaluations of ex-religious Jews and religious Jews. And these are just my evaluations based on a few comments that I have seen on this topic from Jews. I may end up being totally off here. Maybe there are lots of ex-Jews that do defend him and maybe there are lots of religious Jews that also defend him. But I did not really see this view on sites that I have went to.

Finally, you have the crazy insane nut-case Jews like myself who do end up rising up to this case and saying that not only is it wrong to put Rubaskin in jail, not only was it wrong to bust him for doing what he did, but that there was nothing wrong in his illegal practices whatsoever. Sadly, this is not a view I commonly hear anyone say.

Let us begin with the easiest topic, jail. I will not repeat my arguments again, which can be found here. My position with regard to jail is that jail should only exist for dangerous people (like those who want to blow up a bridge). That is the same argument I used when I defended Bernie Madoff from going to jail here. It follows from this concept that since Rubaskin is not a dangerous person he cannot be send into jail. He poses no threat for the world at all and so if he is found guilty of anything his only punishment would be to pay fees.

And maybe you agree with me. Maybe you do agree that sending him into jail was excessive. But you probably do not agree with what he did. You think what he did was morally wrong and that it is a good thing that he got busted down.

My reasons for defending the illegal practices that he was doing is based on very simple economics. If you have Mexicans that are willing to risk everything they have to cross over the border under the fear of getting caught and getting into trouble to come into the US there is one thing you can be sure of. Living in Mexico, for these Mexicans, sucks. It not only sucks it sucks a lot. It sucks so much that they are willing to take such a big task and risk of getting into the US. The fact that they choose to work in a slaughterhouse for whatever conditions he was offering them means that it was better for them than anything else available. In particular, it means that it was better for them than anything else available in Mexico. Otherwise, they would stay in Mexico and other Mexicans will not come over for such a job. The fact that Mexicans were accepting such a job is only a sign that it was better for them.

The job that these Mexicans had definitely sucked. But it sucked far less than anything they had in Mexico. The problem that a lot of people do is they judge the job these Mexicans had from their own preferences. Since we live richer and better lives we see this as a terrible job to have. But we must be wiser than that, we must judge and try to see this from the preferences of the Mexicans. They have poorer and worse lives than we do so they will see the jobs offered to them at Rubashkin differently from how we would see them. What is bad for us might be not so bad or maybe even good for them.

We conclude that Rubashkin improved the standard of living of these Mexicans. How can he therefore be called evil? How can he be called that he is exploiting the the Mexicans? After all they risked all they had to come and work for him. He must have been doing something correct.

Now some people might say that Rubashkin should have offered a minimum wage job with benefits that all workers in the US are supposed to have by law. There is a problem with proposing this. Why would Rubashkin go through the hassle of hiring illegal immigrants for whom he can be busted for if they give him no incentive over regular workers? If he treated the Mexicans with the same working regulations that would have treated a US citizen then what incentive does he have to hire them? None at all. Hence the Mexicans would have never recieved this job. A job that would have definitely made their lives better off.

Consider what happens now when Rubaskin is shut down. All those Mexicans that had a job to work for him lost their jobs. As a result their lives are much poorer. It is even possible that some of them were deported or unable to find a new job. When Rubashkin got shut down the Mexicans suffered as a result from that.

It is clear to any rational mind which does not think about this case with passions what the proper just course of action would be. That is to not interfere with the operation of the slaughterhouse. Busting down Rubashkin not only ends up throwing a harmless man into a cage for an incredibly long period of time but it also ruins the lives of the poor Mexicans that were working for him. The proper option would have left alone these Mexicans that they can continue to improve their lives and left Rubashkin alone for being able to enable the Mexicans to do that.

I would also like to remind that what Rubashkin did was exactly how American accepted immigrants. When the immigrants came to American in the past generations their lives sucked. But they were better than they were previously. These people worked in (what we would certainly find) bad jobs. But this work enabled their children to live a better life for themselves. What the Mexicans are doing is no different at all considering that what they did was not illegal in 1900. Mexicans just want to make their lives and the lives of their children better off. And the way they do this is by working from the bottom, this is after all the American way. Objecting to what Rubaskin did is to reject in principle what America is all supposed to be about.

7 comments:

  1. Additionally, the fact that illegals are without protection of law is not Rubashkin's fault, but that of the government. It's the same way that prostitutes and drug dealers are without protection.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At least you got the name Rubashkin right and the word jail as well. The rest of your screed truly answers the question of how ignorant one can be. He was tried and convicted of defrauding a bank and that's what sent him to jail. The illegal workers charges were dropped and most of the illegals were NOT Mexican. It's your blog, but it would be helpful if you posted fact and not some wrong information you probably dug out of your rear end.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "He was tried and convicted of defrauding a bank and that's what sent him to jail. The illegal workers charges were dropped and most of the illegals were NOT Mexican.":

    Let us examine what you say.

    You say that the illegals were not Mexican. Who cares? Why does it matter? Does my arguments all of the sudden cease to matter that my specifics were off?

    You say he got send into jail for bank charges. That was only one charge. The other charge is that he got sent into jail also for hiring illegal immigrants. If it is really true that his only crime was bank fraud then why are all Jewish bloggers and comment sections filled with his illegal work practice? Why would that be relevant to his trail?

    "It's your blog, but it would be helpful if you posted fact and not some wrong information you probably dug out of your rear end.":

    Let me ask you this question again. Does my mistake automatically disqualify the defense that I presented? What I wrote is relevant to his defense and it is something you did not refute. If you think I am wrong in defending him then you must explain why my defense is weak and not just say that I got some specifics wrong.

    I am not trying to be some news source. Hence, I do not care about the accuracy of the news information presented here. I care about the ideas that are involved in various stories. The specifics you can always find in a newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You base your argument on his being in jail because of hiring illegals. He was never tried on these charges. The government dropped them when he was convicted of bank fraud. Bank fraud is the reason he's in jail. The issue of hiring illegals is irrelevant to why he sits in jail. If you think he's in jail for hiring illegals, or should be freed for that reason, you have no understanding of the criminal justice system. I generally enjoy reading your blog. I'm saddened at your degree of ignorance on this issue and your posting information that is false.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You base your argument on his being in jail because of hiring illegals. He was never tried on these charges. The government dropped them when he was convicted of bank fraud. Bank fraud is the reason he's in jail. The issue of hiring illegals is irrelevant to why he sits in jail. If you think he's in jail for hiring illegals, or should be freed for that reason, you have no understanding of the criminal justice system.":

    Yes, you are right. I looked it up online and the reason why he was send into jail was because of bank fraud.

    I knew there was bank fraud present in his trail and I thought he was convicted for two charges (illegal workers and fraud). But I had no idea that the illegal workers charge was entirely dropped.
    ---

    But this post of mine still does have credit if you reinterpret the title to mean "Defending the illegal hirings of Rubashkin".

    Also, as I said, lots of Jewish comment sections were filled about his illegal workers, not so much mention of fraud. The Jews who were angry and hated Rubashkin had this anger mainly because of his illegal hirings. I am defending that practice.

    As far as bank fraud goes. Well, I cannot possibly defend that charge since there is nothing to defend about something like that. All I can say is that Rubashkin should not be in jail, as I said above, because he is not a violent criminal.

    "I generally enjoy reading your blog.":

    Really, this piece of trash? Well, thank you for that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You argument still does not hold water because it is explicitly against Jewish law to oppress your workers. Since Rabushkin traded on his reputation as an orthodox Jew adhering to Jewish law, it could be argued that he defrauded his customers. In any case, maybe you should consider working for a day as a volunteer in a slaughterhouse or do a stitch of serious manual labor before you spout your bilge about how great it is to have the freedom to use people in what every way you see fit as long as it generates a profit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You argument still does not hold water because it is explicitly against Jewish law to oppress your workers.":

    How did he oppress them? Did he lock them up into a cage and told them to work for him? Did he take out whips and beat them if they refused to work for him? Did he put a gun next to them and told them to work or die? The illegals decided to come over and work for him. How is that in any way oppression?

    The other problem with what you said is that what Rubashkin did is not against Jewish law. I know of an Orthodox Jew who entirely agrees with me about Rubashkin. He also cannot see what is exactly so wrong with hiring illegals. If it was against Jewish law then he would have likely objected to what Rubaskin did on account of Jewish law. Since he did not do that, and said that he sees nothing wrong with doing that, I conclude that it is not against Jewish law. It is against your own morals which you decided to call "Jewish law".

    "In any case, maybe you should consider working for a day as a volunteer in a slaughterhouse or do a stitch of serious manual labor before you spout your bilge about how great it is to have the freedom to use people in what every way you see fit as long as it generates a profit.":

    Point to me where I said that working in a slaughterwise is great?

    I was very clear. I said that the jobs the illegals had sucked. But it sucked less than anything else that was available for them. Therefore, it is wrong to take away from these choice this choice.

    The best way you help illegals is by offering them as many choices as possible. If you want to help them then open up a competing business with Rubaskin. But do not say how Rubashkin needs to be regulated to standard conditions of citizens because that would simply make Rubaskin lose incentive in illegals and end up hurting illegals.

    Economics is not the study of hopes and intentions but the study of cause and effects. Your intentions are good but they will end up harming the very same people they are designed to protect. Another good example of unintended consequences from good intentions.

    ReplyDelete