I don't think you're wrong, but my basic values, such as "all citizens should have human rights" would be discovered as "a crony belief". And are you suggesting that I therefor rid myself of it?
But seriously - if you are presented with evidence that when not all citizens have human rights then everyone is more well-off and happier than when all citizens have human rights, and after finding no errors in the data or logic, will you automatically dismiss it or reassess your belief?
If you would reassess your belief then it's not a crony belief. Of course, you might never need to reassess it, but being open to the possibility that it might need rethinking is what keeps it from being a crony belief
I simply do not believe that anyone would be "more well-off and happier" by themselves being stripped of the protection afforded by their own human rights. This is a contradiction in terms.
Argument against human rights are always targeted at some powerless underclass, such as immigrants or non-citizens, who are felt not worthy of this protection. The person making this argument typically feels that the leopard would surely never eat _their_ privileged face, but would only punish, you know, _those people_.
Isn't this just a battle of crony beliefs? The crony belief in rights vs the crony belief that people aught to be more well off and happier.
Kidding aside, as I mentioned earlier I suggest the antidote to crony or any other false beliefs is an uncompromising and unrelenting skepticism in every belief. This neti-neti approach can continue until what remains is not a belief anymore, but a recognition of something that is prior to any belief.
It's actually very easy to do this.