A Socratic Dialogue on The Minimum Wage

Lawrence W. Reed of the Foundation For Economic Education (God, wouldn't the world be better if Obama had taken some online courses there) has reared back and thrown out a gem of a post about the minimum wage. 

It's in the form of a Socratic Dialogue. 

I try to do this on Facebook all the time, with varying degrees of success, mostly because my FB friends get pissed and declare that I don't care about poor people and then the dialogue ends when I point out that they don't pay people a freakin' dime more than they have to because I've watched how they tip their bartenders and then we all unfriend each other. 

I'm scraping the whole thing here, just in case the FEE website goes bankrupt or something.  This thing mirrors so many conversations and blog entries I've written on this dismal subject, but does it so much better. 

Socrates: So you want to raise the minimum wage. Why?

Congressman: Because as President Obama says, minimum wage workers haven’t had a raise in five years.

Socrates: Can you name one single worker who was making $7.25 five years ago who is still making $7.25 today? And if you can’t, then please tell me what caused their wage to rise if Congress didn’t do it. Come on, can you name just one?

Congressman: I don’t happen to have a name on me, but they must be out there somewhere.

Socrates: Well, we’ve just been through a deep recession because successive administrations from both parties, plus you lawmakers and your friends at the Fed, created a massive bubble and jawboned banks to extend easy credit. The bust forced many businesses to cut back or close. Now we have the weakest recovery in decades as ever-higher taxes, regulations, and Obamacare stifle growth. No wonder people are hurting! Do you take any responsibility for that, or do you just issue decrees that salve your guilty conscience?

Congressman: That’s water over the dam. I’m looking to the future.

Socrates: But how can you see even six months into a murky future when you refuse to look into the much clearer and more recent past? You guys think the world starts when a problem arises, as if you’re incapable of analyzing the problem’s origin. Maybe that’s why you rarely solve a problem; you just set everybody up to repeat it. If you really look to the future, then why didn’t you see this situation coming?

Congressman: Look, in any event, $7.25 just isn’t enough for anybody to live on. Workers must have more to meet their basic needs.

Socrates: An employer doesn’t have anything to pay an employee except what he first gets from paying customers. I wonder, whose "needs" do you consider when you decide to buy or not to buy: the workers’ or your own? Have you ever offered to pay more than the asking price just to help out the guy who made the product? And if customers like you won’t do that, where do you expect the employer to get the money?

Congressman: That’s not a fair question. My intent here is purely to help.

Socrates: Sounds to me like the answer is "no," but let’s move on. Why do you assume your intentions mean more to a worker than those of his employer? It’s the employer who’s taking the risk to offer him a job, not you. You’re only making speeches about it. Don’t you see a little hypocrisy here—you, who are personally offering no one a job, self-righteously criticizing others who are actually creating jobs and paying wages even if they’re not all at a wage you like?

Congressman: Employers are interested only in profits.

Socrates: Are you saying employees are not? Are they more interested in working for companies that lose money, and if so, then why don’t they all line up for government jobs?

Congressman: Well, we lose money here in government every year and there are plenty of people who are happy to work for us.

Socrates: You have a printing press. You also have a legal monopoly on force. When you borrow in the capital markets, you shove yourself to the head of the line at everybody else’s expense. Are you saying these are good things and that we’d be better off if the private sector could do these things too? Try to keep up with me here.

Congressman: I repeat, employers are interested only in profits. People before profits, I say! I even have a bumper sticker on my car that says that.

Socrates: So are you saying that employers would be better people if, instead of seeking profits, they tried to break even or run at a loss? How does that add value to the economy or encourage risk-takers to start a business in the first place?

Congressman: You’re trying to belittle me but I went to a state university. All of my sociology, political science and gender studies professors told us that raising the minimum wage is good.

Socrates: Were any of those tenured, insulated, and government-funded pontificators actual job-creating, payroll tax-paying entrepreneurs themselves, ever?

Congressman: That’s beside the point.

Socrates: (Sigh.) Figures.

Congressman: Look, $10.10 isn’t much. I think you must be mean-spirited and greedy if you don’t want people to be paid at least $10.10.

Socrates: Yeah, like you guys in government check your personal ambitions at the door when you take office. I’d like to know how you arrived at that number. Was it some sophisticated equation, divine revelation or toss of the dice? Why didn’t you choose $20.00, which is not only a nice round number but also a lot more generous?

Congressman: Well, $20.00 would be too high, for sure. Too much of a jump at once.

Socrates: It sounds like you think the cost of labor might indeed affect the demand for it. Good! That’s progress. You’re not as oblivious about market forces as I thought. What I want to know is why you apparently don’t think higher labor costs matter when you raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. Do you think everyone, regardless of skill level or experience, is automatically worth what Congress decrees? Do you believe in magic, too? How about tooth fairies?

Congressman: Now hold on a minute. I’m for the worker here.

Socrates: Then why on earth would you favor a law that says if a worker can’t find a job that pays at least $10.10 per hour, he’s not allowed to work?

Congressman: I’m not saying he can’t work! I’m saying he can’t be paid less than $10.10!

Socrates: I thought we were making progress, but perhaps not. Can you tell me, if your scheme becomes law, what happens to a worker whose labor is worth only, say, $8.10 because of his low skills, lack of education, scant experience, or a low demand for the work itself? Will employers happily employ him anyway and take a $2.00 loss for every hour he’s on the job?

Congressman: Businesses need workers and $2.00 isn’t much, so common sense and decency would suggest that of course they would.

Socrates: So employers who employ people are too greedy to pay $10.10 unless they’re ordered to, but then when Congress acts, they suddenly become generous enough to hire people at a loss. Who was your logic instructor?

Congressman: Can we hurry this up? I’ve got other plans for other people I have to think about.

Socrates: I give up. You congressmen are incorrigible. You’re the only people on whom my teaching method has no discernible impact.

Congressman: You ask too many questions.

At this point, in utter frustration, Socrates drinks the hemlock. The congressman votes to price many of the nation’s most vulnerable employees out of work and gets reelected.
Whoever warned us to beware of Greeks bearing gifts apparently never met a congressman.



 

30 Anti-Libertarian Fallacies

Someone named Max Borders at the Foundation For Economic Education came up with this list of anti-libertarian logical fallacies. 

Mr. Borders knows his stuff.  In fact, I've scraped it, just in case the Foundation For Economic Education goes bankrupt or the site disappears.  (This fallacy is also known as "The Blogger You're Reading Is A Lazy Bastard, And Ripped Off Another Writer".) 

Mr. Borders lists 30 logical fallacies that are often used in arguing against the libertarian philosophy.  You'll have to go here to see number 30. 

You already know what it is.  You've heard it a hundred times. 

1. Argument ad KochBrotherium: This fallacy is a cousin to the genetic fallacy and guilt by association. The twist, of course, is that anything that the Koch Brothers ever say, said, fund, funded, might fund, came close to funding, could have funded, will fund, walked by, looked at, support, think about, or mention is invalid by virtue of, well, “Koch Brothers! Boo!”
    
2. The Unicorn: You’ll recognize this fallacy from the question, “Why does no libertarian country exist anywhere in the world?” Embedded in the question is the assumption that libertarian countries don’t exist because they are fantastic creatures, like unicorns. Of course, just because something doesn’t exist yet does not mean it can’t exist. Indeed, the Internet in 1990 and the American Republic in 1775 beg to differ. And the unicorn fallacy fundamentally confuses the libertarian worldview with some “L”ibertarian platform that might be the product of some electoral processes—processes most libertarians reject. Michael Lind and E. J. Dionne have brandished this fallacy rather shamelessly, and have had it parried rather effectively by better minds.
    
3. Nut-Picking: This fallacy has nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. In this style of argument, the arguer finds the kookiest or most insane person who self-identifies as libertarian and then ascribes all of that person’s beliefs or claims to all libertarians. (This one could also be called the Alex Jones fallacy.) This is a tough one to counter simply because there are plenty of nuts to pick from, and plenty of them use the l-word.
    
4. Must Be Scared/Have No Answer: This one’s pretty simple really, and a unique creature of “debate” via social media. The libertarian leaves his computer or signs off for a while and the opponent accuses the libertarian of not being able to answer his or her FB claims, which the libertarian simply never saw or had no time to answer.
    
5. The Tin Man: This fallacy was identified and named by Cole James Gentles (here) who inspired this article. With the tin man the arguer either concludes or falsely assumes that the libertarian “has no heart” because she argues against some favored policy. 
   
   This cousin of the straw man (scarecrow) fallacy assumes a direct line between sympathies and outcomes. Any failure to support some means amounts to a failure to support the wished-for end.
   
   
   The tin man fallacy is rooted in the assumption that one’s opponent, often a libertarian, has no heart. Unlike the straw man fallacy, in which the debater needs to mischaracterize their opponent’s position, the tin man fallacy allows the debater to build a sturdy-looking, if hollow, general facsimile of their opponent’s position (“You are against state mandated universal health care?”), but not give him a heart (“Then you don’t care about poor people who don’t have access to affordable, quality insurance, or people with pre-existing conditions!! You heartless monster! WHY DO YOU HATE THE POOR?!” Heard that one before?)
    
   The frightening part of this fallacy is that its wielder usually thinks exitus acta probat.
      
6. Availability Cascade: Something big and bloody happens on the news (or goes viral) so the arguer implies or concludes that it’s a widespread occurrence.
   
   Example: A mass shooting has occurred, which points to an epidemic of gun violence.
   
   It’s not clear that if gun violence is at a multidecadal low point, the incident reflects an “epidemic.” The ready availability of some story leads one to conclude that a problem is widespread and demands a drastic response. Cass Sunstein, known for his work on “nudging,” gets credit along with Timur Kuran for identifying this phenomenon. (An availability cascade doesn’t always have to involve specious reasoning, but it very often does.)
    
7. Man on the Moon: Remember Rachel Maddow standing in front of the Hoover Dam? She’s trying to convince her viewers that the government (which she calls “the country”) must tax and build some major make-work project in order to revive the economy (or whatever). Maddow is employing a form of the man on the moon fallacy, which takes the form, “If we can put a man on the moon, we can do X.” But it misconstrues any reservations about big, awe-inspiring State projects as doubts about “America’s” ability to do big things. It’s just assumed that anything requiring extensive collaboration must be done via State power for it to count. Questions of the value, cost, or feasibility (or some combination thereof) of any particular project are sealed off from the word “if.” And of course “we” is never carefully unpacked.
    
8. The Gap: I wrote a whole book about why the following involves fallacious thinking. The fallacy goes something like this: “The free market widens the gap between rich and poor.” Now, strictly speaking that claim might be correct. But so what? I’ll pass over the problem that the “free market” has probably already been attacked with the unicorn fallacy at some prior point in the same hypothetical conversation. In any case, because economies are dynamic, the “rich” and “poor” change from day to day, and measured in quintiles, we don’t know whether the “gap” will be greater or smaller from one day to the next, even assuming a free market. The real problem with such reasoning is the built-in assumption that a gap itself is a bad thing. Suppose a really tall man moves into my neighborhood. Apart from my suddenly wishing I were taller, does the presence of the tall man make me worse off somehow? Of course not. The existence of the rich person doesn’t make me worse off, either, unless he got rich by using political means to transfer money from my pocket to his. This happens all the time. But such transfers have nothing whatsoever to do with free markets.
   
   Measuring an asset gap in and of itself tells us little. Indeed, without the functional story of how any gap came to be—stories, not snapshots matter here—we can’t make any judgments about it whatsoever. “Gap” talk is just a fetish that ignores how much better off the poor are thanks to the existence of innovators and entrepreneurs who got rich by creating value. And the unstated assumption is that if any group of people has more wealth at any particular point, the people with less are somehow being wronged simply because the other group has more. The gap fallacy is also meant to preempt debate, usually in the service of another agenda (which is rarely more than reinforcing the opponent's opinion of himself as a good guy).
    
9. The Two-Step: Some opponents will simply change the subject in the middle of a discussion, leaving the original claim by the wayside. Usually neither party notices the two-step. For example, the opponent may refuse to answer the libertarian’s direct question and instead respond with another question. Or the debater may slide into one or another irrelevant point that has no bearing on the original point at issue. This process can go on for a while unless the libertarian rigorously brings the opponent back to the original point. The red herring, ad hoc and non sequitur are similar enough fallacies, so the two-step may also be classified as an evasive tactic.
    
10. Panglossian Fallacy: Because the military-industrial complex was somehow involved in developing aspects of what later became the commercialized Internet, it follows that government funding is indispensable for such wonderful things to appear—and that all the things that go along with the funding (and revenue-collection) apparatus are therefore also acceptable. This variation of the post hoc fallacy is seductive particularly because we can never know what would have happened in the counterfactual private sector. Form: If it happened, it must be the best of possible worlds. (See also the “The Government R&D Canard.”)
     
11. Your Side: Also known as tarring with the same brush, this fallacy has a couple of related forms (see No. 1 and No. 3). An opponent may accuse the libertarian of being a Republican or Tea Party conservative because he or she happens to agree with a majority of Republicans on some particular issue. One hears: “Your side thinks . . . ” when in actuality the libertarian doesn’t have a “side” per se. It works even better as a tactic if there is really no connection at all apart from being something the opponent’s “side” would never say. The “your side” fallacy allows the opponent to appeal directly to tribal biases, which are more immediate and powerful than any argument. When it’s intentional, this rhetorical maneuver is meant to appeal to others who may be watching—the hope being that they’ll swerve into the ditch that is their own biases.
     
12. The We/Society Fallacy: This common form of hypostatization occurs when the user ascribes rational individual agency to “society” and conflates or confuses society with the State. Both usually happen immediately, or somewhere hidden, before the opponent even speaks. The opponent wants his moral position or emotional state to be reflected somehow in the organization of society.
    
     Although “we” or “society” is a useful ersatz word that appears to confer legitimacy on some aspect of the opponent’s claim, it is almost always an intellectual sleight-of-hand. Only individuals can act. Groups must work through processes of either collaboration or coercion. (Note: “The market” is often misused this way, by both supporters and detractors.)
     
13. Deus ex Machina/Market Failure: People is people. And yet opponents sometimes think that it’s enough to argue that governments, by dint of largess and force, have the power to fix certain kinds of problems, which they label “market failures” because they happened outside the purview of State action. Note that this only works in one direction: Problems in any area covered by the State are usually chalked up to being problems merely of execution, whereas “market failures” allegedly reflect an inherent deficiency. Even if one agrees that one set of people working in voluntary cooperation cannot solve some problem (or at least haven’t yet), it does not follow that another group of people—“the government”—can. Indeed, greats like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock have given us very good reasons why government is not likely to solve problems and will likely make matters worse.
     
14. The Organic Fallacy: Such arguments take the form, “It’s organic therefore it’s good or good for you.” Or similarly, “It’s not organic therefore it’s bad or bad for you.” One hears this rationale to demand regulations and food labeling. And while there may be independent reasons to justify such regulations or labeling, these are not justified by the organic fallacy. It’s not clear that Socrates would argue for the health benefits of natural hemlock, nor would people with thyroidectomies argue they should go without Synthroid. I would add that, until there is more evidence to the contrary, there are plenty of GMOs that are good for me. (Note: Plenty of libertarians commit this fallacy too. Just because Monsanto is a rent-seeker doesn’t mean all its products are bad.)
     
15. Nobel Fallacy: You may recognize the form “X has a Nobel Prize in economics, who are you to argue against his claims?” I don’t care whether Krugman or Stiglitz has a Nobel Prize, they’re wrong about just about everything.
    
    And the truth or falsity of one’s claim doesn’t depend on his credentials. (Meanwhile Nobel Laureates James Buchanan, Vernon Smith, Elinor Ostrom, Douglass North, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek are mostly always right. I mean, that’s like 6–2 for the good guys. [*rimshot*])
     
16. No Parks for You: Snarkier opponents of libertarianism rhetorically ask why libertarians avail themselves of all the goods and services government happens to provide. “If you’re going to live by your principles, you can’t use X or Y” (insert: state universities or public roads). Of course, it does not follow that one should not avail himself of some good or service he thinks should be provided by other means.
    
    Indeed, one could argue that he is more than justified in consuming some good or service he has been forced to pay for against his will.
     
17. The Self-Exile Fallacy: Snarkier still is the opponent who argues that “If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave?” Implicit in this question is the suggestion that there is some positive duty for one to leave a condition he doesn’t like and/or that by one’s staying, he his implicitly consenting to whatever the system is. By this “logic,” if you have just bought a house with an ‘80s bathroom, instead of improving, changing, or upgrading it, you should just take a bath in the kitchen sink.
     
18. Somalia: Opponents love to tell you that Somalia must be a “libertarian paradise.” Everyone laughs. If you respond with a phrase like “comparative institutional analysis,” everyone’s eyes glaze over and you lose, despite being correct. Somalia has been better off on most dimensions without a central government than it was under a brutal, centralized regime—warlordism notwithstanding.
     
19. Social Contract: Rousseau left a terrible intellectual legacy. And progressives use his “social contract” to justify anything under the statist’s sun.
    
    Of course, there could be a real social contract, but libertarian opponents prefer the one that allows them to justify anything under . . .
     
20. Start Somewhere: You’ve slogged through the data. You’ve offered a completely rational response. You’ve explained the ins and outs of why your opponent’s policy X won’t work and why it may even make things worse. The response? “We’ve got to start somewhere.” The idea here is that it’s better to do, well, anything—even if it might result in calamity. And, of course, the State must do that potentially calamitous thing. (See also No. 23.)
     
21. Social Darwinism: “The free market is just social Darwinism!” This is actually a pretty old meme. It was used by progressive academics in the 1940s to smear the work of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was a biological Darwinist to be sure. And he also thought the market and social phenomena like institutions and ideas would be subjected to analogous evolutionary forces. But the unit of survival in markets is the business, not the individual. In other words, businesses that fail to create value for customers die. But advocating for free people to engage in voluntary exchange is not advocating people leave the weak, poor, or vulnerable to suffer.
    
    Quite the contrary. Most advocates of the free market believe a robust philanthropy sector is part and parcel to a system of voluntary exchange. Herbert Spencer thought so too. He writes: “Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.”
     
22. Argumentum Ad Googlum: This fallacy proceeds when the libertarian makes a good point or builds a stellar case, or asks a question the opponent can’t answer. The opponent disappears for a while frantically Googling away. The opponent comes back with a series of links that stand in for argument. To be fair, this isn’t always a fallacy, as some will use links to support their claims. But often the tactic is used to thrust the burden of debate back onto the libertarian who is expected to read through the links and infer some point. At best, it’s bad form.
     
23. We’ve Got to Do Something!: Related to the “start somewhere” fallacy, “We’ve got to do something!” is an argument that really means (a) the State has to do something, and (b) State action is preferable to both no action or private action. Numerous examples of this fallacy appear when opponents think any action riding on good intentions is good enough, consequences be damned. Often, however, it can be demonstrated that it is better for government to do nothing and to stop doing what it’s already doing. (Examples include stimulus spending, regulation, and other forms of intervention.) For government to do nothing is rarely presented as premise subject to debate and evaluation. Someone genuinely open to ideas would ask, “What should be done about this?” and “Who should do it?” Someone genuinely interested in answers would have the courtesy to make explicit what they already believe: “The government has to do something, which is beyond debate. Here’s what I think that something should be.”
     
24. Empirical Fallacy: A familiar opponents’ refrain of late is: How do we know X isn’t going to work until we try it? We have to wait and see the empirical evidence before calling X a failure. With such reasoning we should let monkeys go to Washington and type randomly into a big machine that spits out statutes at random. Well, we already do this in a manner of speaking, but it might be a good idea to look at some well-established economic theory and economic thinking before sallying forth into legislative adventures that could have both predictably perverse and unintended consequences. More importantly, the opponent presumes it is the prerogative of the State—and, by extension, any governmental group within the State apparatus—to experiment on those under its auspices, and that it is the duty of the subjects in that jurisdiction to submit to the experimentation. (Also called the Pelosi Fallacy.)
     
25. No True Libertarian: Ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy? Usually it’s applied by someone in a group to question another’s membership in that same group in terms of their ideological purity. Libertarians are famous for saying to each other “If you think X, you’re no libertarian.” But libertarians’ opponents use a variation of this, too. They’ll say something like “Libertarians believe in X. If you don’t, you’re no libertarian.” (X might be natural rights, collective non-State action, a social safety net, etc.) The No True Libertarian fallacy is a way of trying to force the libertarian to choose between a subtle variation in his argument and his own doctrine. It implies the libertarian lacks credibility: “This clown doesn’t know what he thinks!” Of course, such a tack has no bearing on the truth or falsity of either party’s claims, or the validity of their arguments. Libertarianism is a diverse school of thought. It is not a monolith. One need only demonstrate the consistency of his argument.
     
26. Fascist Ignorance: This one should be familiar: Libertarian opponents were outraged—OUTRAGED—when John Mackey pointed out quite correctly on NPR that Obamacare is a fascist policy. Fascism is, of course, a doctrine that calls for significant State control over private industries, to be carried out in the service of State ends. So the fallacy of fascist ignorance is a form of ad hominem in which a libertarian opponent refers to the libertarian or his views as “fascist” despite, strictly speaking, holding fascist views herself. (One might also refer to this as the “Chicken calling the cow ‘poultry’” fallacy.) In the interests of good discourse, however, it’s probably not wise for anyone to evoke the power of the “F” word at all, given how much baggage it carries.
     
27. Just One Life: The emotional appeal, grounded in nothing substantive, is meant to be a moralistic shutdown card. It goes “I’m sorry, but if we can save just one life with this policy, it’s worth it.” What does that even mean? Does it mean that every life has infinite value? Does it mean that saving lives at the expense of others and all other considerations is the purpose of government? Or does it mean that “worth it” is completely vague, but you just care a lot? It’s a heroic-sounding sentiment, but it demonstrates only the speaker’s commitment and earnestness—not any analysis of the policy itself.
     
28. Consensus: This hybrid of the bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacies infects lots of discourse. It takes the form, “Lots of really smart and educated people believe X, therefore it’s true.” From the USDA food pyramid dieticians to macroeconomists, authorities are not always right.
    
    There are limits to any individual’s Fability to understand all the nuances of a given issue. Prediction and forecast are even more difficult. Political decision-makers must confront the same exact same cognitive limitations as mere mortals, which is why they, like libertarian debate opponents, rely far too heavily on expert “consensus.”
     
29. Logo-phallo-euro-centric: Opponents accuse libertarianism of being hostile to women, minorities, homosexuals, and other marginalized groups. The fallacy lies in the idea that if your doctrine doesn’t acknowledge that groups deserve special, State-sanctioned treatment at the expense of other groups or individuals, it’s tantamount to some ism. Some even go as far as to say that if you use certain language some construe as racist, sexist, or homophobic, it invalidates libertarian doctrine. While many libertarians act like idiots and should probably not overreact to collectivist PC victim narratives with foul language, libertarian doctrine is at root a doctrine of anything peaceful—voluntary cooperation, decentralized power, and radical community formation. The heroes of libertarianism (of all races, sexes, and ethnic backgrounds) knew that collectivism and Statism are interdependent world views: It takes evoking collectivism and inventing group rights (or wrongs) to justify most State actions, and the State has historically had the power systematically to prop up or tear down people by group.
       
30. You'll have to go here to read #30.  Heck, the guy went to all that trouble to make this list and you need to send him some traffic!!

George Will Vs. Juan Williams

Here's George Will wiping the floor with Juan Williams, eating his lunch, drinking his milkshake, and then letting Williams escape with the last word. 

Will starts by explaining why all rational people want to see ObamaCare defeated.  That's easy. 

Then Williams start in on Social Security, arguing that it's now incredibly popular, and that ObamaCare will soon achieve the same level of popularity.  AND WILL LETS HIM GET AWAY WITH IT!!!

All you have to do, George, is stand on the table, bang your shoe on the rafters, and say "JUAN, YOU OVERPAID IDIOT, SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE!!  THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT IN THE FUND!!!  ENRON WAS POPULAR!  LEHMAN BROTHERS WAS POPULAR!!  WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT POPULAR!!  THE WHITED SEPULCHRE WILL NEVER, EVER COLLECT WHAT HE PUT INTO THE FUND!  IT'S F***ING BROKE!! BROKE AS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!" 

(God, I feel better now.)

Watch the whole thing.  It's only two minutes. 

 

But in a Libertarian society, who would regulate Monsanto?

My Libertarian credentials and activities are now out there to the point that I'm no longer introduced as Whited, the shipping manager, or Whited, the father of The Aggie. 

I'm now Whited, the Libertarian. 

Here's the conversation that comes up about 50% of the time:

Whited: Nice to meet you!

Statist Slave: You too.  Hey, how can you be a Libertarian when they want to let Monsanto poison people and create Godzilla corn and torture puppies? 

Whited: Who told you that? 

Statist Slave: Well, you guys are always in favor of the big corporations, and....

Whited: No, no, no, we're not in favor of the big corporations.  We're pro-free market. 

Statist Slave: But if you have nothing but unfettered capitalism, corporations like Monsanto will continue to steal our Bibles, and dig up the bodies of our ancestors for target practice. 

And so it goes.....

Seriously, here's what works best.  There's lots of confusion out there about "less regulation" and "holding people to account for harming others".  There's almost total ignorance about Public Choice Theory and Regulatory Capture. 

Ask your friend which corporations he fears.  You're going to hear about Monsanto, some military contractors, Wal-Mart, and global multinationals.  That's it.  Not the agricultural subsidy hawgs, the green energy scammers or G.E. 

Ask why they are afraid of these companies.  You're going to hear about corporate oppression, advertising that allows us no choice because we're so susceptible to marketing, underpaid workers, and harm to the environment. 

Take 'em on one at a time.  Monsanto OWNS the FDA.  And the EPA. There's nothing but a very well-lubricated turnstile between those three organizations.   Go here for details.  (This is called "regulatory capture", but taken to the 10th power in this case.  Most government agencies wind up defending their regulated companies from competitors.  In Monsanto's case, the regulators are Monsanto.  Truly amazing) 

Ask what they want the government to do to Monsanto.  They'll state that they want GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) labeled as such.

 (Full Disclosure: I can't stand Monsanto, but it's because of the Monsanto Protection Act, which essentially states that if a GMO crop goes bad or turns out to be dangerous, Uncle Sam is obliged to purchase the crop.  With your money.  That's why I turn up at every Monsanto protest within 50 miles of Cowtown.)   

There are other ways to do this without getting government munchkins and pygmies involved.  Look to the example of Kosher foods.  Underwriters Laboratories.  The same thing could be put in place for GMO's.  But if they think the FDA (also known as Monsanto) is going to require Monsanto (also known as the FDA) to label GMO's, it ain't going to happen. 

We're getting close to the end here.  Hang with me.  At this point, my new friend, who is going to avoid me until he starts making a lot of money and feeling guilty about seeking tax shelters, is getting uncomfortable. 

Ask about Farmer's Markets, and the Locavore movement (eating foods grown with 100 miles).  Are these little guys going to handle all this paperwork and testing and pay for certification?  How about the Mexican dude selling tacos and burritos from a bicycle?  Will he have to be accountable?  Where would you draw the line?  (Of course they can't.  That's why Big Business loves Big Government.  Big Government stops little guys from getting started.) 

Finally, for those who believe in evolution, mention that 150 years ago, an ear of corn was about an inch and a half long.  Wheat grew at about 25% of its present density and yield.  Ditto for rice.  Some of this was achieved through trial and error, some through traditional hybridization methods, some by accident, and some by guys at Monsanto (and State Ag Colleges) saying "Screw it, I'm just gonna alter the DNA."  Where would you draw the line?  In the messy, random process that resulted in the Big Mac you're currently eating, where do we draw the line? 

Do you say "this is a sesame seed bun".   And it's the official sesame seed bun, starting with 2013.  This is a pickle.  The 2013 variety.  This is the DNA of 2013 lettuce.  Or pick your year.  We could say that the heirloom seeds of 1953 are the non-GMO variety.  Or we could try to define the beef patties that were present in The Garden Of Eden, and declare those to be the non-GMO's. 

But the foods are going to be changing, through human action, or through Natural Selection.  The lawyers will be very, very happy.  Monsanto can afford lots and lots of lawyers. 

At this point the Statist Slave will say "THE USA IS THE ONLY 1ST WORLD NATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE."  and agree to disagree. 

Keep fighting, people.  Keep fighting.  Later on this week, I'll write about how to alienate yourself by defending Wal-Mart. 

The Great Debate! On TCU Campus! Guns In Texas !

TCU's Young Americans For Liberty and The Tarrant County Libertarian Party proudly present "The Great Debate - Guns In Texas".


This event will feature the Democratic Party's State Representative Lon Burnam, Texas House District 90 debating 2nd Amendment activist Scott Harmon, National Rifle Association volunteer coordinator.

These two fine men will be debating some of the central issues of our time - Who can carry a gun? What can we carry? Where should we be allowed to carry a weapon? What was the intent of the founders, and what does the 2nd Amendment mean today?

This promises to be the best discussion you'll hear on this important topic. Patrick Dixon, the Texas LP's State Chair, will be the moderator.

Free Admission - Saturday April 27th, 2:00 p.m.

Brown-Lupton Auditorium on the TCU campus, 2901 Stadium Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76129

The Statist Outrage Generator

I often find myself in website, blog, Facebook, Twitter and bar arguments with the advocates of more and greater Barack'n'Boehner activity. 

They come back at me with the same talking points with a startling degree of consistency.  Especially the "trickle down doesn't work" and Sarah Palin and Fox News responses. 

To save my online opponents a lot of trouble, I've created The Statist Outrage Generator.  It says everything they're going to say, long before they can think to say it. 

Please feel free to share this with your Friends Of Big Brother, but don't overdo it.  We don't want them testing new knee-jerk reactions in between elections. 

Trickle-Down Stimulus

This is the phrase you must use twice in any debate with members of The Statist Flock.  Three little words. 

"Trickle-Down Stimulus". 

Try it. 

"I don't believe in any kind of Trickle Down Stimulus." 

"Reagan proved it.  Trickle Down Stimulus doesn't work." 

They're accustomed to sprinkling their political arguments with key words and phrases.  George Bush !  Sarah Palin ! Greedy Corporations !  A decent society should take care of it's ....! and finally, without even thinking, they're going to say "Trickle-Down doesn't work". 

I honestly don't know if "Trickle-Down" works or doesn't work.  I do know that it's not our damn government's job to try to make the economy work, though, and I'd rather live in an era when government didn't even pretend to be competent enough to manage money.

The more I read about the Reagan era, the more I see "Trickle-Down" as an unfortunate marketing term for whatever Reagan did.  But the Statists associate the phrase with breaks for the rich.  But here's the Oxford English Dictionary definition:  "Trickle-down, adj., of or based on the theory that economic benefits to particular groups will inevitably be passed on to those less well off...; orig. and chiefly U.S."

If the U.S. has ever experienced an outright gift from the taxpayers to the wealthy, it was in Obambi's stimulus package.  Lord have mercy, what a porkfest.    So don't hesitate to make it known.  

"I supported Obama until he introduced that Trickle Down Stimulus bill."    

Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

Between bars, taverns, restaurants, Facebook, McDonald's drive-thru's, and work, I somehow find myself in arguments with lots of Statists. 

After they get through saying GEORGE W. BUSH!!!! and SARAH PALIN!!! they will usually say something about the need to protect us all from Big Bidness.  I usually hit that one out of the park.  Big Bidness doesn't send me an invoice for a huge chunk of my income every year. 

If the discussion goes on long enough, Obama's Representative Of The Sheeple will then go waaaaay back into his talking points database and triumphantly say TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOESN'T WORK !!!!!!!!!, and then sit down, exhausted, the way Leonard Bernstein used to crumple at the podium after conducting Beethoven's 9th, letting the waves of adoration and applause wash over him. 

Here's how you respond:

Sir, I agree somewhat, but would like to expound on that a bit.  "Trickle Down Economics" isn't an economic phrase, it was just a marketing phrase for a government policy.  "Government Involvement In The Economy" is what doesn't work. 

When Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi gave out billions and billions and billions to big banks and big corporations in the form of The Stimulus Package (instead of just cutting a check to each of us little people for $6,000.00), it was because they believed that "Trickle Down Economics" works. 

Same thing for what The Fed is doing with the money supply. 

Neither of those is working. 

You're right, sir.  "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work.

The Statist will act like he didn't hear a word you said, and will then reply "But Who Will Build The Roads?" 
Keep fighting the good fight, folks !!!

Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup - BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse !!

The Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup has rolled around again !!

Come hang out with us at BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse, sample their homebrews, eat some good pizza, and help us solve the world's problems. BJ's is at 952 Northeast Loop 820, just outside Northeast Mall in Hurst/Northeast Fort Worth.


We'll be getting together on Tuesday night, July 24th from 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. (or later). And we have a lot to talk about.....

We have a Gary Johnson event coming up in August, plus a "2nd Amendment/Gun Rights" Speakers Series with the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association coming up on August 2nd. Plus, there's an election coming up in November, right?

The Libertarian Party - Fiscally conservative, Socially liberal, Pizza tolerant, and Brewpub extremist. Show up and make your voice heard!!

Penn Jillette on speaking the truth

Penn Jillette appears in this brilliant video about the difference between libertarian evangelizing vs. merely speaking the truth. 

In Jillette's opinion, speaking the truth as you see it is the superior method for winning converts. 

Those of us who grew up listening to Baptist evangelists have a hard time dealing with this.  We tend to believe that those who disagree with us simply aren't aware of the same facts. 



Perhaps Jillette has a point. 

If you disagree with me on any Libertarian vs. Authoritarian issue, from now on, I promise to simply speak the truth as I see it.  YOU ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!

How To Win The Libertarian Argument

How does one win the "Libertarian Argument"?

By going here. 

Enjoy. 

You can find more of Mr. Micklethwait's fine work by going here. 

The cartoon below showing many of our failed evangelism practices came from here. 

 

On Fort Worth's Atheist Bus Advertisements

Cowtown is going through some theological upheaval. 
A group called "Metroplex Atheists" has bought advertising space on city buses.  "Millions of people are good without God" is their message. 
But wait....we now have a counter message:

A group of businessmen are paying someone to follow the bus around with a counter-message, a quote that I have scoured the Testaments looking for...."I still love you." - God. 

Lord, have mercy. 
This reminds me of the Jesus Fish wars that you sometimes see on Texas highways.  In the beginning was the Jesus Fish, proudly displayed on Ford F-150 tailgates. 

Atheists sometimes responded by showing off their Darwin Fish. 
And then came this....

I don't have a dog in that fight any longer, as I am now a devotee of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Those of us who have been Touched By His Noodly Appendage display this on their bumpers:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is basically a device to make fun of the conflict.

But I'm still a devotee of the Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit trinitarian jumble in which I was raised.  I no longer claim that it makes a lick of sense, but I can argue its finer points until your eyes glaze over.  It is mine.
 
All of that having been said, if I were in charge of the Atheist bus ad, I would've made one little correction....

It would state "Millions of Americans are good without Gods."  Plural. 

We talk about our Judeo-Christian heritage, but I don't know any Jewish folks who claim that I honor their heritage with my Christianity. 
We talk a lot about the 3 great Abrahamic religions, but I don't know any Muslims (granted, I know less than a dozen) who claim that Fort Worth's great Rabbi Ralph Mecklenburger and I share their heritage. 

Don't get me started on my Mormon friends.  My religious tradition claims that Jesus walked on water, God made Balaam's donkey speak, and that true believers can handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed. 
Mormons, on the other hand, believe that Joseph Smith translated The Book Of Mormon by using some magic spectacles, and that you should never remove your Sacred Undergarments.  That's just crazy. 

Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons can all be good without believing in the same God. 

I don't remember where I first heard this, but compare it to the first 3 Star Wars movies.....

The Jews loved the first movie, but don't acknowledge the value of the next two that were released. 
Christians liked the first movie ok, but thought the second one was best.  They don't like the 3rd one at all. 
Muslims approve of the first two, but they like the third one best. 
Mormons liked the second movie so much that they started writing fan fiction about it. 

But all four tribes have produced some good folks. 

I don't know which businessmen ares paying someone to follow Fort Worth buses around town, but here is a partial list of the Gods that they don't believe in. 


Alberich
Ama-no-minaka-nushi
Ama-tsu-mara
Amaethon
Amaterasu
Amatsu
Amatsu-kami
Ame-no-mi-kumari
Ame-no-wakahiko
Amidaam-no-tanabata-hime
An
Anahita
Anat
Anath
Andhrimnir
Andraste
Andvari
Angrboda
Angus og
Ankt
Annapurna
Anouke
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Apukohai
Arawn
Aray
Ares
Arianrhod
Artemis
Artio
Asclepius
Asherah
Ashur
Astarte
Astrild
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atla
Atlas
Audhumla
Ba’al hadad
Baal
Baal-hammon
Baalat
Babd catha
Bacchus
Badb
Baku
Balder
Balor
Balrama
Bast
Ba xian
Beg-tse
Bel
Belatu-cadros
Bellona
Belobog
Benten
Benzai-ten
Bergelmir
Berstuk
Bes
Beyla
Bhuvaneshwari
Bimbogami
Binzuru-sonja
Bishamon
Bixia yuanjin
Blodeuwedd
Borghild
Bosatsu
Bragi
Brahma
Bran
Branwen
Brighid
Brigit
Bris
Brono
Buddha
Bugid y aiba
Buluc chabtan
Burijas
Butsu
Bylgia
Camalus
Camaxtli
Camulus
Cariocienus
Caswallawn
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Cerridwen
Cerunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Chien-shin
Chimata-no-kami
Chup-kamui
Crnobog
Cupid
Cybele
Cyhiraeth
Dagda
Dagon
Dagon
Dagur
Daibosatsu
Daikoku
Dainichi
Damkina
Danu
Davlin
Dawn
Dazbog
Demeter
Dev
Dewi
Dhanwantari
Dhumavati
Diana
Diancecht
Di cang
Dionysus
Disen
Don
Donar
Dosojin
Dozoku-shin
Druantia
Durga
Dylan
Dziewona
Ea
Ebisu
Eir
Ekchuah
Ekibiogami
El
Elaine
El elyon
Elli
Emma-o
Enki
Enlil
Enyalius
Enyo
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal
Erra
Eshara
Eshmun
Farbauti
Faunus
Fenrir
Flidais
Flins
Flora
Forseti
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
Fudo
Fujin
Fukurokuju
Funadama
Futsu-nushi-no-kami
Gaia
Gama
Ganesha
Ganga
Garuda
Gauri
Geb
Gefion
Gekka-o
Geong si
Gerd
Giobhniu
Gu
Guan-di
Gun
Gwydion
Gwynn ap nudd
Hachiman
Hades
Hadur
Hai
Haniyasu-hiko
Haniyasu-hime
Hanuman
Hathor
Haulili
Haya-ji
Heimdall
Hel
Helios
Heng-o
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hermod
Hestia
Hiaka
Hiiakawawahilani
Hinakuluiau
Hiruko
Hod
Hoderi
Holler
Hoori
Hors
Horus
Hoso-no-kami
Hotei
Hsi-wang-mu
Huitzilopochtli
Hygeia
Ictinike
Ida-ten
Idun
Ika-zuchi-no-kami
Iki-ryo
Inanna
Inari
Indra
Inti
Irmin
Ishtar
Isis
Isora
Ixtab
Izanagi
Izanaki
Izanami
Janus
Jarilo
Jarovit
Jinushigami
Jizo
Jord
Jormungand
Juichimen
Juno
Jupiter
Jurojin
Juthrbog
Juturna
Kagutsuchi
Kalaipahoa
Kali
Kaluannuunohonionio
Kamado-gami
Kamapua’a
Kami-kaze
Kaminari
Kamohoali’i
Kamooalii
Kanaloa
Kanayama-hiko
Kanayama-hime
Kane
Kane-hekili
Kapo
Kapohoikahiola
Karewit
Kari
Kartikeya
Karttikeya
Kathirat
Kaupe
Kawa-no-kami
Kenro-ji-jin
Keoahikamakaua
Keuakepo
Khepri
Ki
Kiha
Kingu
Kinich ahau
Kishar
Kishi-bojin
Kishijoten
Kishimo-jin
Ko-no-hana
Kojin
Koleamoku
Korrawi
Koshin
Kothar
Koya-no-myoin
Krishna
Ku
Kuahana
Kukailimoku
Kukaoo
Kukulcan
Kukunochi-no-kami
Kuni-toko-tachi
Kura-okami
Kurma
Kuula
Kvasir
Laamaomao
Labraid
Lada
Lado
Laga
Laka
Lakakane
Lakshmi
Laran
Lares
Libintia
Lie
Liza
Llyr
Lofn
Loki
Lono
Lonomakua
Lotan
Lugh
Luna
Macha
Maeve
Magna mater
Magni
Mahulu
Maia
Manannan
Mani
Manua
Marduk
Margawse
Marisha-ten
Marowit
Mars
Maru
Marzanna
Matangi
Math ap mathowny
Matka gabia
Matka ziemia
Maui
Mawaya-no-kami
Maya
Mebd
Medb
Melqart
Menhit
Menthu
Mentu
Mercury
Mextli
Mider
Mikaboshi
Milu
Miming
Mimir
Minerva
Miro
Mithras
Mixcoatl
Miyazu-hime
Moaalii
Modi
Mokosh
Mokualii
Moloch
Monju-bosatsu
Mooaleo
Morrigan
Mot
Mummu
Murukan
Musubi-no-kami
Myrrdin
Nacon
Nai-no-kami
Naka-yama-tsu-mi
Nammu
Nanaja
Nanna
Nanse
Neith
Nemain
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Niamh
Nikko-bosatsu
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Ninigi-no-mikoto
Nintu
Ninurta
Njord
Nominosukune
Norns
Nott
Nut
Nyorai
Oanomochi
Odin
Ogoun
Ohkuninushi
Oho-yama
Ohonamochi
Ohyamatsumi
Okuni-nushi
Ops
Orgelmir
Oro
Osiris
Ostara
Ouli
Owatatsumi
Oyamatsumi
Pales
Pan
Papa
Parvati
Pele
Perperuna
Persephone
Perun
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus apollo
Pilumnus
Pluto
Podaga
Poliahu
Pomona
Porewit
Poseidon
Proserpine
Puea
Qadeshtu
Quetzalcoatl
Radegast
Raiden
Ram
Rama
Ran
Re
Resef
Reshep
Resheph
Rhea
Rod
Rugiviet
Ryo-wo
Sabazius
Sae-no-kami
Saga
Sakhmet
Sambo-kojin
Samulayo
Sarasvati
Sarutahiko ohkami
Saturn
Segomo
Selene
Sengen
Septu
Seshat
Seth
Seti
Shachar
Shaka
Shakti
Shalim
Shamash
Shamayim
Shapsu
Shemesh
Shen yi
Shichi fujukin
Shinda
Shine-tsu-hiko
Shiva
Shoden
Shoki
Shu
Si-wang-mu
Siebog
Sif
Simargl
Sin
Sirona
Sita
Siwa
Sjofn
Skadi
Sleipnir
Sol
Stribog
Suijin
Suitengu
Sukuna-biko
Surya
Susanoh
Susanowa
Svantetit
Svarog
Svetovid
Svetovit
Syn
Takami-musubi
Takemikadzuchi
Taki-tsu-hiko
Tatsuta-hime
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tehwom
Tenjin
Teutates
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
The zorya
Thor
Tiamat
Tlaloc
Tonatiuh
Toyo-uke-bime
Toyouke-omikami
Triglav
Tsuki-yumi
Tu
Tu matauenga
Turris
Tyche
Tyr
Uba
Uga-jin
Uga-no-mitama
Ukanipo
Ukemochi
Ulaulekeahi
Uli
Ull
Utu
Uzume
Vali
Valkyries
Vamana
Vanir
Var
Veles
Venus
Vertumnus
Vesta
Vidar
Vishnu
Volturnus
Vulcan
Wakahiru-me
Wata-tsu-mi
Wepwawet
Wurukatte
Xipe
Xi wang-mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Yabune
Yam
Yam-nahar
Yama-no-kami
Yamato
Yarikh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yuki-onna
Yum kimil
Zababa
Zana
Zedek
Zeus
Zirnitra
Zislbog
Zizilia
Zroya

Millions of people, sometimes billions, are able to be "good" without bowing down to Zizilia or Zroya.  Ditto for Yahweh, Allah, or even my preferred Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.  It has taken me a long time to undestand this. 
But just for fun, just for fun....
How about we get one of my red box trucks, paint The Flying Spaghetti Monster on the side of it, and pay someone to follow the blue van which is following the city bus ?

The Statist Sincerity Detector

There are people of good will and good sense who disagree with the Libertarian desire for a smaller, less costly government. 
They see government spending as a net good, they see central control as a benefit, and elected authority as a comfort. 
I don't get it. 
I win some arguements with these folks, some arguments end prematurely, and some taper off into the weeds and thickets of guns and ObamaCare and that single mother with 5 kids who just can't make it on the minimum wage paid by greedy corporations. 
In my way of thinking, I'm the best judge of how my money should be spent.  And if I'm going to take someone else's money by force, it better be for a great cause.  I have lots of friends and meet lots of people who don't see it that way, though.   

Well, there is now an online "sincerity detector" that will be useful in these little spats.  Anyone with an iPhone, iPad, or a laptop can see if their Statist friends are truly committed to the cause.  (Most of the time, they're just posturing.) 

If someone claims that the government is the best judge of how to spend money, send them here. 
Step back. 
Ask them to put up or shut up.

My Political Opponent Is Hitler

Zomblog has documentation of the recent "My Political Opponent Is Hitler" trend that Speaker Pelosi has been lamenting.
Kind of hard to argue with.
Point conceded.
It's happening.

How To Spot A Bad Argument

This is from Johann Hari, writing in "The Independent" :

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?"

You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

So whenever I report on, say, atrocities committed by Israel, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about the bad things done by Muslims? Why do you never talk about them?" Whenever I report on the atrocities committed by Islamists, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about Israel? Why do you never write about the terrible things they do?" And so it goes on, whatever the subject, in an endless international shifting of blame, united in the cry: "What about them! Talk about them instead!".....

The best way to respond to what-aboutery is to state a simple truth. Say it slowly: there can be more than one bad thing in the world. You can oppose American atrocities, and Chinese atrocities. You can be critical of Israel, and of Islamism. You can condemn Dubai's system of slavery, and the fact people are detained without trial in Britain. You can stand independent of governments - including your own - and criticize anyone who chooses to abuse human rights. The world is not divided into a Block of Light, and a Block of Darkness; you don't have to pick a tribe and defend its every action.

So whenever you hear the cry "But what about?!", you can reply: what about we ignore this crude attempt to change the subject, and focus on the subject in hand?

Graph of Bad Argument from here

The Best Argument Against Creationism

.

Serpents can't talk.

.

And In The Red Corner....

Back in January, I wrote something about an editorial by Joel Stein in which Mr. Stein was making a total mockery of the "Locally Grown" food movement.

It caught the eye of one of my Blogging heroes, Perry DeHavilland of Samizdata, who linked to it and got me somewhere around 30% of my current readership.

In the meantime, wonder of wonders, I started commenting back and forth with a guy called The Red Son. The Red Son is a Marxist revolutionary type with a serious weapons fetish and a hankerin' for revolutionary posters.

Somehow, Red Son found that old post and used it to start a discussion/argument with Perry, and the argument over the virtues of locally grown food has been going on for about two days now. Perry's site, Samizdata, is what inspired me to start typing every day. The Red Son is the only true collectivist I've ever encountered who appeared to have sense enough to feed himself. I'm more than a little proud of providing the battleground for these two.

Both of these guys know a lot about logic, rhetoric, argument, and history. In my opinion, The Red Son is in the difficult position of having to argue from totally false premises.

Go here to read it. I've tried to chime in, but I'm now staying out of their way. You can safely ignore most of the January comments, and skip straight to the December conversation. Interesting stuff.

How To Argue....Please Read The Last Paragraph First

Former New York City mayor Ed Koch asks the question "Does Al Gore Know What He's Talking About?"

Click on the link above, read the whole thing, and try to get back to me.

I recently received an email from someone attacking a lengthy scholarly article. The article and its conclusion were controversial. The sender of the email encouraged everyone to read the conclusion first, then read the rest of the article. I repeat, the sender suggested reading the conclusion first.

My assumption is that no one would read the virtually bulletproof argument presented in the paper if they were to read the controversial conclusion first. It was a disagreeable conclusion. I also assume that the sender didn't genuinely want anyone to evaluate the lengthy argument presented in the academic paper; the goal was to point out the various heresies in the conclusion without reference to the preceding argument.

It made me totally nuts.

Friends of mine who received the same email vigorously defended the author/scholar who wrote the controversial paper. They defended the argument made in the article, and defended it well.

(Awwww....I'm lying....they really didn't defend the piece. They defended the author's right to publish his opinions, and they defended their right to like the author and his books. The points made in that article were too radioactive to be openly and honestly discussed by people with reputations to worry about. So I'll get to it one day....)

But no one that I know pointed out the error of encouraging people to read the conclusion without reading the argument first. Especially when the argument is the point.

What does this have to do with former New York City mayor Ed Koch's piece that asks "Does Al Gore Know What He's Talking About?" Well, for starters, my original intent was to post only the last two paragraphs of Koch's argument on this site. Then I would pat myself and Ed Koch on our backs and compliment both of us for sharing the same opinion on Al Gore, i.e. that he's a doofus.

But that does a disservice to Al Gore by enlisting an "authority" argument from Ed Koch, which would encourage people to read only the conclusion from the "authority".

The Argument From Authority is a weak one, whether the Authority in question is Ed Koch, The Pope, Oprah Winfrey, 9 out of 10 Dentists who chew sugarless gum, or the Old Testament Prophet Habbakuk. What is the evidence that Ed, Pope, Oprah or Habbakuk bring to the argument? That's what matters.

Oprah likes Obama, and she's famous. She's an authority on a lot of things. But can she make an argument that Obama is the best choice for President of The United States? And does that argument hold up well? She's probably tried to make the case for Obama somewhere, but I haven't run across it yet. All I find are statements that Oprah has endorsed Obama.

Posting Ed Koch's closing paragraphs also does a slight disservice to Ed Koch, doesn't it? His intent was to provide us with a math problem, where this fact plus this statistic, subtracted from this statement and multiplied by this piece of history, equals Koch's-opinion-on-whether-Gore-knows-what- he's-talking-about. But many of us in the Blogosphere like to post only the factoids we agree with. Or we grab one disagreeable paragraph, do a thorough Fisking, and move on to the next heresy.

I'm going to try to avoid that from now on. Any fiskings will be complete, rather than selecting the most delicious offerings that the buffet of 2008 offers to me.

And you still haven't read the beautiful hatchet job that Ed Koch did on Al Gore, have you?