Arguments seem probable, but, like sandals, don’t hold water

So I’m a Libertarian now.

Not really, but I was at this conference over the weekend where… So I’m a Libertarian now.

Not really, but I was at this conference over the weekend where there were hardcore “free market” people who never used the L-word. And I agreed with them about a bunch of things. The argument’s really appealing, actually. Government screws things up. Not that you need convincing, but look at welfare or housing; it sucks at making anything work. Ergo, the hypercapitalists say, less government means fewer things screwed up.

It’s simple, it’s straightforward, it’s tempting.

And, seriously, government is really bad at a lot of things. Example: all cars had to have a catalytic converter regardless of need. Is it really so out of whack to think: if you want lower emissions, make a law mandating lower emissions?

See, the arguments are so neat and clean.

My friend Nate – he’s actually the type of friend that gets paid to spend time with me, also called an adviser, but stories should have friends in them – knows a lot about philosophy, and he’s told me that good arguments have two parts.

The first part is called Sound Premise. That means you start from an idea that does not inspire insanity, even though I think it sounds more like a small body of water near Quebec. It’s easier to come up with an unsound premise than a sound one, so an example of this would be: There is a rhinoceros in my room. (That was actually a clever philosophy joke, but suffice it to say that there are no more or fewer rhinos in my room than you might expect. That is to say, the statement was wrong.)

The second part, Nate tells me, is called Valid Inference. This sounds more like a Renaissance poet (pronounced Val-eed In-far-en-say), but it apparently means getting from one step of your argument to another without getting lost. An example of an invalid inference: the rhino is not in my room, so I’m hungry. See how that doesn’t work? Me either, but I figured no philosophy student would pick a fight over it.

The L-people are really good at this arguing stuff. Government sucks at making things work. Check. If the government did less, there would be less for them to suck at. Check. So less overall sucking. As my buddy Valid would say, perfecto.

I got hit with so many stats this weekend that it made me consider buying a calculator. Man, are there a lot of numbers telling me how bad the government is at running anything. I didn’t need a lot of numbers to be convinced of that, but still, they were impressive. And – wait for it – they were shown on – ooh, aah – PowerPoint.

Just think, we get the sucky-ass government out of everything, and then we’re all cool. No more screwing up. I didn’t really believe it, but there’s no flaw in the argument, so it must be right. Just ask the nearest philosophy student (he’s the one in the Birkenstocks).

But then I was arguing gun control. And I was saying that I was in favor of some control, but that guns were okay. You just don’t need a grenade launcher, a silencer and less than a three-day waiting period to protect yourself or kill Bambi. The person with whom I was arguing gave me the old “sliding slope” theory: give those damned liberals an inch, and they’ll want, like, a mile. And then they’ll be a mile away and you can’t shoot them.

I told him that the sliding slope theory is a logical fallacy. When you tell people they’re using fallacies, two things happen. One is that they think you’ve just started analyzing their dreams and relationships with their mother. The other is that they think you’re a jargon-y moron and they start looking for Birkenstocks in your house.

Seriously, it is a fallacy (that’s just a word Nate taught me for invalid inference). Saying that because one thing happens, it follows automatically that more will happen, just doesn’t hold up to our Italian poet’s standards.

The thing is, I knew my opponent was right. What, are all of the gun control groups going to pack up and leave when they get what they’re asking for? No, he’s absolutely right, the damn liberals will take your inch of control, walk a mile away, and then sell your gun to Hollywood for 10 bucks.

So I thought back to my uberconservative friends and their impenetrable arguments. Less government, less screwing up. No government, no screwing up. It made so much sense, but it was wrong.

Philosophy is a neat way to get someone thinking about his mother, but it’s just not any better than the government when it comes to solving real problems. Those little boats enjoying the Canadian winds on Sound Premise are really only good for recreation and not for going anywhere.

I understand where the L-men are coming from, and I agree with the sentiment. But the fact is that, no matter how bad the members of government are at making decisions, we can vote them out of office. And no matter how few benefits Rupert Murdoch gives his employees, we can only tune out. And I know I’m not giving up “My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance”, so I’d rather the screwing up be done by someone I can fire, even if his replacement might be an idiot too.

That argument might not be great philosophically, but it holds water in this world where I happen to live. No matter how expensive your sandals might be, holding water is just something they’re not built to do.

Greg Heller-LaBelle is the Editor in Chief of The Pitt News, which means the screwing up is often done by someone he can fire. E-mail him at