L.A. Liberty

Rhetorical Conventions of Big Government Sympathizers

With discussions of “rhetoric” in the air, I thought it timely to propose what I have observed - from online discussions, family get-togethers, and everything in between - as the archetypal rhetorical conventions of big government sympathizers (i.e. the left, generally, though not exclusively):

deflections (altering or averting the basis of the discussion to a different but seemingly related topic. this is related to ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. also known as using ‘red herrings’),
assertions of pathos (appeals to one’s emotions, usually in the form of a sad hypothetical or a specific personal account, intended to either pity a concession or portray the opposition as a monster; this could also take the form of fear mongering),
assertions of ethos (attempts to find hypocrisy in the opposition’s position, either by alleging that a different position held by the opposition is counter to their opposition’s current position, or by simply alleging “You would sing a different tune if it were you [or other person you care about] who needed [said government program]”; this could also take the form of tu quoque, or justifying something because someone else has done something similar),
cum hoc ergo propter hoc / post hoc ergo propter hoc (conflating correlation with causation)
ad hominem attacks (related to pathos and also a form of ignoratio elenchi; such an attack charges the motives, intellect, or character of either the opposition or another person who shares the opposition’s position in order to render an argument invalid, this often takes the form of accusations of racism, sexism, or some other form of bigotry),
argumentum ad ignoratium (positing that because something is not proven false, it must be true)
straw men (absurd conclusions or false examples, ostensibly based on the opposition’s argument, created in order to be refuted),

and perhaps most common of all…
non-sequiturs (similar to straw men, these are failures in logic that assume incorrect conclusions; often a form of illogical reductio ad absurdum as it is based upon incomplete or incorrect data or conjecture).

These conventions can be explained by what is arguably the greatest weakness of big government sympathizers: a lack of reasoned thought and creativity that is the result of their inability to look beyond the status quo*. In other words, because government does it, they have a hard time envisioning how it could be done without government.

This lack of reason and creativity leads to a bounty of non-sequiturs:

Being against so-called “gun control” means that I want a world where people launch rockets at their neighbors. Being against drug prohibition means that I want a world filled with violent drug-dealers and abusers in psychotic rages. Because I am against government schooling, I am against education and I want the world to be illiterate. Because I am against the government taking my money and inefficiently giving it to the poor, I loathe poor people. Being against the FDA means that I think it acceptable that companies would poison their customers. Wanting to eliminate the FCC is tantamount to championing porn on every television channel. Because I am against government-run health care, I want children to die in the streets. Being against the warfare state means I’m an isolationist who wants us to be defenseless. An argument against farm subsidies is an argument to let the world go hungry. Because I’m against the minimum wage, I am pro-slavery. Advocating against public parks means I hate trees. Because of what I believe, no one would ever build a road, pick up garbage, police the streets, put out fires, patrol our coasts, or protect us from evil corporations, slumlords, and insurance agents.

So every argument usually ends up becoming a defense of what’s possible when government is not there to provide a good or perform a service (poorly and inefficiently).

But the salient point in my consistent position against government overreach is: no one could really know how something may best be done once free people are able to utilize the market’s ingenuity-incentivizing system of supply, demand, competition, cooperation, and comparative advantage to create efficient alternatives.

The mutually beneficial trade of a free, decentralized market is far superior to central planning, and, as I touched upon in my Case Against the TSA, the results of which are essentially unknowable for two fundamental reasons. First, to paraphrase Hayek, there’s no way to imagine what can be designed by millions of people acting freely; and second, to paraphrase Mises, it would be impossible to implement any scheme properly or efficiently even if planned by intelligent, well-meaning angels.

*(This is not unlike their seeming lack of ability to consider the unintended consequences of policies. What Frederic Bastiat termed “that which is unseen”, and what Thomas Sowell calls “thinking beyond stage one.”)

Posted January 21, 2011 at 6:37pm in War on Rhetoric ∆ austrian economics | comments || home