Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
What? No! That won't happen! The government will have used their special magic powers to drive out the evil business men so they can have us living in a land of milk and honey!
"So, why do we need all these regulations and programs? Can't people be trusted to work it out themselves?"
"No! People are idiots and that's why we need government keeping things in line or it would all be chaos"
"So people can't function without central planning to keep things running?"
"Yes"
"So...aren't governments made up of people themselves? Where's their central planners"
Compare this to...
"So why don't you believe in evolution? You really think life couldn't have formed on it's own through the principles described by the theory?"
"No, it could never happen. Anything so complex would have to have a creator. It's obvious!"
"So anything complex must have a creator?"
"Yes"
"But...such a god would be complex too. Doesn't he need a creator according to your own logic?"
This is why I call anti free market people dogmatists because they use the exact same fallacious, special pleading argument employed against the theory of evolution which coincidentally, the free market borrows a lot of ideas from. It sounds okay at first but both ultimately beg the question that the collectivists cannot answer: You say things need central planning but why does god/gov get a free pass?
You must explain why god/gov gets to be the exception to your own claims or else you're not explaining anything.
|
Strawman arguments, Nirvana fallacies, hypocrisy, blind faith in a set forth ideology. Why, I would venture to say this is a Hawkeye post!
As much as you would like opponents to adopt a position so easily dismissed, that doesn't mean you get to pretend that is always their position. To do so is intellectually lazy and dishonest. If I wanted to argue like you, I could just as well claim that anyone who disputes government regulation must stand for the position for pure, uncivilized, caveman-style anarchy. I won't do that, however, because it would be a bad argument, even if that doesn't stop you.
Where you most certainly go awry is that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you believes in magic-fueled, benevolent authoritarianism. This shows no attempt to grasp that the power base in democracies and republics is inherently distributed to the constituency, so you "centralized planning" charge seems as petty engineering to the bad comparison that is your argument. Democratic governments are expected to be utilized by the constituencies to collectively govern themselves, forming and protecting laws, rights, services, representation, and more that are guaranteed in exchange for the agreement to be governed. As I've tried to tell you before but you so happily ignore in your childish, anti-government tirades, democratic governments are established to by, of, and for the people rather than some alien hostility seeking to suppress and dominate the people. As such, violations of that basic tenet that you might rail against can only have one root cause: the constituency has somehow failed to uphold it.