Saturday, December 12, 2009

How to Argue



Let's dissect an argument. How about Guns?

Pro:
  • Guns are necessary to self-defense
  • Our right to pack heat is acknowledged in the Constitution
  • Hunting rifles are a sacred tradition
  • Shooting guns is a popular sport
Con:
  • Guns are used to commit crime
  • Negligent discharges cause loss of life
  • Guns have only one purpose--destruction
  • Only police and military need guns
Compromise:
  • Sensible gun laws
  • Gun registration
OK, which side won the argument? The Con side, of course. The reason the Cons won is because the Pros are lousy at arguing. Let's use a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate how principles make argument easier.

Freedom:
  • Do anything as long as you harm no one
  • Go anywhere, buy anything
Slavery:
  • Population is controlled, and secure
  • Homogenous society. Deviants not allowed
Compromise:
  • IRS, DMV, CIA, Police, FBI, NSA, Assessor, Legislature, etc...
  • Sensible Laws
The usual argument for freedom is that it provides the highest prosperity possible. That is a horseshit argument, a bribe to persuade people to choose freedom. L. Neil Smith said it best--people that have to be talked into freedom don't deserve it. Freedom may or may not be the road to prosperity. It's just a road to one thing--freedom.
The horrible truth is that most people are more comfortable with slavery. People don't like their neighbors ingesting wierd substances, performing atypical sexual acts, possessing scary things, and thinking different thoughts.
How much freedom do you want?
   

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are welcome.