xannex
23rd November 2009, 08:57 PM
This is an excerpt from a book, but I'm not sure of the author or the book title anymore. Anyways, I thought I'd share it.
Listen carefully to people discuss or argue over political issues. You will hear many fallacies or obstacles, that get in the way of clear thinking about the issues. Following is a brief discussion of five common fallacies:
1. The Utopian Fallacy
"utopia" refers to a perfect society, where everyone has everything they want all the time and nothing ever goes wrong. No such place has ever existed, But opponets of freedom hold Utopia up as a standard. They will contend that freedom does not garuntee that everyone will get everything they want. Some people will be dissapointed or frustrated and there will still be murderers, theives, rapists and other criminals. Because freedom does not garuntee utopia, they argue, we should reject it.
It is true: no advocate of freedom can garuntee utopia. So what? No advocate of any political view garuntee Utopia. Utopia is not one of the options. It is simply not available. Lets be practical, examine what is available and choose the best. There are three options in politics in america today.
The first option is the status quo: the government and politics of the last 20 to 30 years and a continuation of trends developing during those years. Most people complain a great deal about the status quo. Different people have different complaints, but the level of dissatisfaction today is quite high.
The second option is to move toward larger government and more government involvement in more aspects of our lives. That option is inevitably accompanied by increased taxes and loss of liberty. Most Americans find that option even less appealing than the status quo.
The third option is to move toward reducing the size of the government, reducing its involvement in our personal and business affairs and reducing its costs, thus reducing taxes. Making such reductions would increase personal freedom and each person's control over his or her own life. Most Americans prefer this option to others.
It bears repeating: Utopia is not one of the options. When you hear someone object to the idea of greater freedom by saying, for example, "but you cannot guarantee that all children will get a good education if we repeal compulsory school attendance laws," thats the Utopian fallacy.
2. The PANG (people are not good) premise.
This is the fallacy that is found in almost every argument for government regulation of peoples' lives. The unstated premise is that people are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest, and dangerous to themselves and others. Some examples: Social security is necessary because people would not otherwise provide for their own future; the draft is necessary because not enough people would be willing to defend america; drug laws are necessary because without them we would be a nation of stoned out people incapable of doing anything; compulsory school attendance laws are necessary because without them, parents would never educate their children.
The PANG premise has a huge logical hole in it. Those who use it always exclude themselves from the class of "people" who are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest and dangerous to themselves and others. If the PANG premise were valid, the last thing anyone would want is a large powerful government managed by such people, running your life and mine. Basically, "If people are generally good, you don't need a government, if people are generally evil, you don't dare have one."
Most people, most of the time, act properly. They don't lie, cheat, steal, rape or murder. Mostly, we act on the principle of respect for other human beings, recognizing that they have the right to control their own affairs, expecting that they will deal with us peacefully and honestly as well.
3. The Reification Fallacy
"Reification" is a fancy word for treating a concept or a lavel as something that actually exists. The mistake is in forgetting that the concept or label doesn't really exist, only people do. "Government" does not exist as a thing separate from the people in it. Certainly it is necessary to have a term like "government," just as we have terms like church, school, army, union, corporation, family and so on. But, none of these labels (groups) has an existence apart from and greater than the individuals in it.
Whenever you hear someone discussion what the government, or the bureaucrats, or the big corporations, or the unions did, always ask "Which individuals did which things?" Only individuals can act and they should, of course, be responsible for their actions.
One reason people engage in this fallacy is to depersonalize other people they want to mistreat. It is easy to call for heavy taxation of "the big corporations." It is not so easy to call for reducing the dividends of the pensioners, widows, and orphans who depend on the pension funds that own shares in the same big corporations. Another motivation behind using this fallacy is to buttress the argument that you, an individual, are less important than labels such as "society." You, the argument goes, should sacrifice your interests for the benefit of the other people in the larger group.
4. The Free Lunch Fallacy
The most basic principle of economics has been stated "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Although ungrammatical, the propisition is true and undisputable. Unfortunately, where political matters are concerned, many people seem to believe there is a free lunch, that they can get something for nothing. Frequently we hear of free education, or free medical care, or that justice should be free. Your property tax bill or federal income tax return will demonstrate that these things are not free. Neither teachers, doctors, nor judges work for free. Government employees generally receive good salaries and are invariably outraged if anyone suggests they take a pay cut. The source of payment for all government services is the earnings and property of people who are not government employees; i.e., taxpayers.
Anyone receiving something from government does so at the expense of other hard working Americans. The question is whether people receiving subsidies or other government "benefits" will pay for them, or whether they -- with the assistance of government force -- can make others pay.
5. The Fallacy That Laws Work
Many believe that people will stop doing certain things if only legislators will pass a law making those things a crime. (We distinguish here between criminal laws that penalize conduct that violates the rights of another, such as murder, theft, etc; and laws that penalize peaceful, honest conduct that does not violate the rights of another. Unfortunately, over one-half of our current law enforcement efforts and expenses fall into the latter category.
The prohibition experiment in America is instuctive. Between 1920 and 1933, a constitutional amendment prohibited the production, sale, and use of alcoholic beverages, activities that violated the rights of no one. The results were disastrous. Prohibition not only failed to stop drinking, it spawned organized crime. The price of the illegal booze increased,creating profit opportunities for anyone willing to engage in criminal activity. People of a criminal inclination benefitted most. Criminal profiteers corrupted the criminal justice system, buying off police, courts,and jailers. People lost respect for the law. Unlike a free, competitive market, sellers, smaller competitors were often disposed of by violence.
The general pattern repeats itself any time government turns a peaceful, honest activity into a crime. People simply do not quit buying the products and services they want just because of the risk of going to jail. The other predictable result is the creation of a "black market" which will have most, if not all, of the characteristics of the illlegal market for alcohol that developed during the proibition.
It is amusing to hear peole argue that, if there were no drug laws, people would smoke marijuana or snort cocaine when the current estimates are that 25 million to 40 million Americans do so regularly. We hear this absurdity repeated in arguments for other laws. Without laws against immigration, thousands from Mexico and Central America would come here; or, without laws against prostitution, people would sell sexual services. These are just a few examples among thousands that daily prove that trying suppress peaceful conduct with criminal penalties never works.
-CONCLUSION-
People believe or accept many fallacies and mistaken ideas about politics. The foregoing discussion involves five of the most commonly encountered fallacies and obstacles to clear thinking. The careful observer who stays alert will detect these and other fequently. In any discussion of ten minutes or more. each one is quite likely to sppear more that once.
Keep this in mind. If an argument is based on a fallacy, the argument is either partly or completely invalid. In politics, skepticism toward those who employ specious arguments is valuable protection for your freedom and your pocketbook.
What do you think?
Listen carefully to people discuss or argue over political issues. You will hear many fallacies or obstacles, that get in the way of clear thinking about the issues. Following is a brief discussion of five common fallacies:
1. The Utopian Fallacy
"utopia" refers to a perfect society, where everyone has everything they want all the time and nothing ever goes wrong. No such place has ever existed, But opponets of freedom hold Utopia up as a standard. They will contend that freedom does not garuntee that everyone will get everything they want. Some people will be dissapointed or frustrated and there will still be murderers, theives, rapists and other criminals. Because freedom does not garuntee utopia, they argue, we should reject it.
It is true: no advocate of freedom can garuntee utopia. So what? No advocate of any political view garuntee Utopia. Utopia is not one of the options. It is simply not available. Lets be practical, examine what is available and choose the best. There are three options in politics in america today.
The first option is the status quo: the government and politics of the last 20 to 30 years and a continuation of trends developing during those years. Most people complain a great deal about the status quo. Different people have different complaints, but the level of dissatisfaction today is quite high.
The second option is to move toward larger government and more government involvement in more aspects of our lives. That option is inevitably accompanied by increased taxes and loss of liberty. Most Americans find that option even less appealing than the status quo.
The third option is to move toward reducing the size of the government, reducing its involvement in our personal and business affairs and reducing its costs, thus reducing taxes. Making such reductions would increase personal freedom and each person's control over his or her own life. Most Americans prefer this option to others.
It bears repeating: Utopia is not one of the options. When you hear someone object to the idea of greater freedom by saying, for example, "but you cannot guarantee that all children will get a good education if we repeal compulsory school attendance laws," thats the Utopian fallacy.
2. The PANG (people are not good) premise.
This is the fallacy that is found in almost every argument for government regulation of peoples' lives. The unstated premise is that people are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest, and dangerous to themselves and others. Some examples: Social security is necessary because people would not otherwise provide for their own future; the draft is necessary because not enough people would be willing to defend america; drug laws are necessary because without them we would be a nation of stoned out people incapable of doing anything; compulsory school attendance laws are necessary because without them, parents would never educate their children.
The PANG premise has a huge logical hole in it. Those who use it always exclude themselves from the class of "people" who are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest and dangerous to themselves and others. If the PANG premise were valid, the last thing anyone would want is a large powerful government managed by such people, running your life and mine. Basically, "If people are generally good, you don't need a government, if people are generally evil, you don't dare have one."
Most people, most of the time, act properly. They don't lie, cheat, steal, rape or murder. Mostly, we act on the principle of respect for other human beings, recognizing that they have the right to control their own affairs, expecting that they will deal with us peacefully and honestly as well.
3. The Reification Fallacy
"Reification" is a fancy word for treating a concept or a lavel as something that actually exists. The mistake is in forgetting that the concept or label doesn't really exist, only people do. "Government" does not exist as a thing separate from the people in it. Certainly it is necessary to have a term like "government," just as we have terms like church, school, army, union, corporation, family and so on. But, none of these labels (groups) has an existence apart from and greater than the individuals in it.
Whenever you hear someone discussion what the government, or the bureaucrats, or the big corporations, or the unions did, always ask "Which individuals did which things?" Only individuals can act and they should, of course, be responsible for their actions.
One reason people engage in this fallacy is to depersonalize other people they want to mistreat. It is easy to call for heavy taxation of "the big corporations." It is not so easy to call for reducing the dividends of the pensioners, widows, and orphans who depend on the pension funds that own shares in the same big corporations. Another motivation behind using this fallacy is to buttress the argument that you, an individual, are less important than labels such as "society." You, the argument goes, should sacrifice your interests for the benefit of the other people in the larger group.
4. The Free Lunch Fallacy
The most basic principle of economics has been stated "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Although ungrammatical, the propisition is true and undisputable. Unfortunately, where political matters are concerned, many people seem to believe there is a free lunch, that they can get something for nothing. Frequently we hear of free education, or free medical care, or that justice should be free. Your property tax bill or federal income tax return will demonstrate that these things are not free. Neither teachers, doctors, nor judges work for free. Government employees generally receive good salaries and are invariably outraged if anyone suggests they take a pay cut. The source of payment for all government services is the earnings and property of people who are not government employees; i.e., taxpayers.
Anyone receiving something from government does so at the expense of other hard working Americans. The question is whether people receiving subsidies or other government "benefits" will pay for them, or whether they -- with the assistance of government force -- can make others pay.
5. The Fallacy That Laws Work
Many believe that people will stop doing certain things if only legislators will pass a law making those things a crime. (We distinguish here between criminal laws that penalize conduct that violates the rights of another, such as murder, theft, etc; and laws that penalize peaceful, honest conduct that does not violate the rights of another. Unfortunately, over one-half of our current law enforcement efforts and expenses fall into the latter category.
The prohibition experiment in America is instuctive. Between 1920 and 1933, a constitutional amendment prohibited the production, sale, and use of alcoholic beverages, activities that violated the rights of no one. The results were disastrous. Prohibition not only failed to stop drinking, it spawned organized crime. The price of the illegal booze increased,creating profit opportunities for anyone willing to engage in criminal activity. People of a criminal inclination benefitted most. Criminal profiteers corrupted the criminal justice system, buying off police, courts,and jailers. People lost respect for the law. Unlike a free, competitive market, sellers, smaller competitors were often disposed of by violence.
The general pattern repeats itself any time government turns a peaceful, honest activity into a crime. People simply do not quit buying the products and services they want just because of the risk of going to jail. The other predictable result is the creation of a "black market" which will have most, if not all, of the characteristics of the illlegal market for alcohol that developed during the proibition.
It is amusing to hear peole argue that, if there were no drug laws, people would smoke marijuana or snort cocaine when the current estimates are that 25 million to 40 million Americans do so regularly. We hear this absurdity repeated in arguments for other laws. Without laws against immigration, thousands from Mexico and Central America would come here; or, without laws against prostitution, people would sell sexual services. These are just a few examples among thousands that daily prove that trying suppress peaceful conduct with criminal penalties never works.
-CONCLUSION-
People believe or accept many fallacies and mistaken ideas about politics. The foregoing discussion involves five of the most commonly encountered fallacies and obstacles to clear thinking. The careful observer who stays alert will detect these and other fequently. In any discussion of ten minutes or more. each one is quite likely to sppear more that once.
Keep this in mind. If an argument is based on a fallacy, the argument is either partly or completely invalid. In politics, skepticism toward those who employ specious arguments is valuable protection for your freedom and your pocketbook.
What do you think?