> > Is missing the "point" the same as not buying into a fallacious argument?
>
>No. It is fully possible to understand an article, and rationally
>disagree with it. This is much different than misunderstanding the
>article, and disagreeing with an interpretation of the article that is
>not, in fact, valid. (Indeed, this latter is one form of a cause of
>much anger in the world.)
Sorry, maybe a smiley after my question would have made it clearer
that it was sarcasm. I well understood what you were implying by
saying I had "missed the point".
> > Do you feel that Mr. Brin's argument was sound, or is your support
>> more of a vague approval of his general theme?
>
>I believe his argument was sound given his premeses.
I don't. As I mentioned, the argument that he attempted to build
along the way was so hopelessly flawed that I was forced to view his
conclusions as unsupported.
At the bottom of this response, I've taken his essay and pointed out
just a few of the fallacies therein. It's far from an exhaustive
attack of his logic, but enough to call the reasoning of his
conclusions into serious question.
As a professional writer and a scientist, couldn't he have done better?
>I also see some
>merit in the idea of corrupting, as it were, the current government to
>more libertarian ideas (as he puts it, "evolution" rather than
>"revolution") instead of devoting all resources to making government
>irrelevant.
Sure. That's not a bad idea. He has some other ideas that I'd agree
to in the article as well, like taking an innovative new approach to
education.
Unfortunately, these are just small ideas thrown out in a larger
article, which was rendered as an argument.
He also made the statement that he votes for Democrats - at the very
beginning of his essay. I'm not saying that voting for Democrats is
necessarily wrong. I'm just saying that the Democratic and
Libertarian parties are on quite different sides of the political
spectrum. For a general audience, the burden would be upon Mr. Brin
to explain in a consistent manner how voting for a party with a
noticeably opposed ideology would achieve the goals of Libertarians.
He didn't do that.
> > As it is, his argument is overly loaded with fallacies. Am I wrong
> > to then not just accept his conclusions as valid?
>
>The conclusions you objected to were not the conclusions of the article.
I was objecting to his arguments, not necessarily his conclusions.
If an argument is fallacious, it doesn't mean that the conclusions
are wrong, just that they're unsupported by that particular argument.
I think that you and I might disagree about the details of his
conclusions, but the fact that there is such a lack of clarity in his
essay seems to be more the fault of the author than his audience.
> > > > He claims to be mostly a Libertarian, but he actually votes
>for Democrats.
>> >
>> >Yep. Because he believes that Libertarian aims can be more effectively
>> >achieved by improving the system - which requires working within it, and
>> >thus working with The Powers That Be - than the current ideal of
>> >destroying the system and starting over (which is presumably what the
>> >L candidates he voted against were promoting).
>>
>> He never explicitly mentioned voting "against" Libertarians. He said
>> that he voted "for" Democrats. Whether that means that he wanted to
>> vote for possible winners in a major party or he wanted to vote
>> against a revolutionary LP candidate is unknowable from this piece -
>> I find support for both positions. They both seem equally likely so
>> taking one side or the other would be special pleading.
>
>Technically, under most of the American political system (which, to my
>knowledge, is what Mr. Brin votes in), a vote for one candidate for a
>position (where only one person may fill that position) is a vote
>against all others. (I personally would not mind seeing that change,
>but that is the reality for now.)
Above, you characterized Mr. Brin's voting for Democrats as being a
direct vote *against* the LP candidate. Implying his intent from his
arguments is not discernable. Yes, we all know that the American
voting system is basically a zero sum game.
> > >Summary: passing and changing laws and instituations to promote
>> >individuality, rather than merely repealing/removing most or all
>> >existing laws and institutions, is an approach that the public is more
>> >likely to vote into office. It is also more likely to bring better
>> >results in practice, even if either one were equally able to gain power.
>>
>> To be clear: Are you also espousing this "Libertarian goals through
>> the Democratic party" philosophy?
>
>No, *he* is. (And it's not through the Democratic party per se; it is
>through existing government - including both Republicrat parties.) I'm
>just trying to clarify his argument. While I can see merit in this
>idea, I have not given it nearly as much thought as he has, so I am
>probably not nearly as comfortable with it as he is.
If we're supplementing his argument with speculation, he might have
meant that we can achieve Libertarian goals by also co-opting the
Green party. Speculation aside, he said that he votes in general
elections for Democrats. How he goes from voting consistently for
Democrats to achieving Libertarian goals is beyond me.
If he had said:
Whether Republican, Democrat, or independent - vote for the candidate
who both has a chance to win and espouses (and you believe will stick
to) the following goals:
1. Across the board reduction of taxes
2. Reduction of military expenditures for nation-building exercies
3. Increase of individual rights for drug use, euthanasia, sexual
interaction, etc.
4. Promotes strict responsibility for and enforcement of property laws
5. ...
... I might have agreed with his conclusions (although his arguments
would still have been fallacious and in need of work).
However, he didn't really say any of that.
> > If so, could you explain a little more in detail about how promoting
>> the political party that believes in bigger government, higher income
>> taxes, a de-emphasis on personal property, less personal
>> responsibility, and severe gun control will obtain the benefits of
>> the party that believes in minimal government, no income taxes,
>> stronger property rights, higher individual responsibility, and
>> protected gun rights?
>
>I believe his reply to this would be to change the parties' beliefs.
>For instance, getting libertarian (or even Libertarian) candidates to
>challenge current Democrat or Republican candidates for their own
>parties' nominations, rather than running as independent candidates or
>working to take down the system entirely. Now, how to do this
>successfully without becoming corrupted by or beholden to Republicrat
>interests is another issue, but he seemed to believe that this would be
>the easier path...
See, I might agree with that conclusion of yours, and the question
that you raise is a much more pertinent one than any in his essay.
Mr. Brin, however, made no logical effort to put forth that idea. As
I mentioned before, certainly a professional writer could have made
that point if it had been the one that he was working toward.
Regards,
Chris Russo
------------------------------------------------------
Below are portions of Mr. Brin's essay with my comments indicating
fallacious arguments.
------------------------------------------------------
>After serious thought, I can only conclude that I must be a...
>(shudder)... pragmatist.
>
>*
>
>No word is better guaranteed to offend those who love the memic
>pleasures of ideology. According to the deeply-rooted tradition of
>Plato, the world is made up of essences. Some may be right and
>others wrong, but any person worthy of respect must believe in some
>essential "truth", some law or model of human nature, whether it's
>the labor theory of value or an absolute right of property. Men of
>the True Right and True Left often respect each other on principle
>while disagreeing. Above all, they share contempt for wishy-washy
>types who see partial truths coming from all directions.
>
>Yep, those pure Platonic ideologies offer loads of satisfaction. But
>sorry, I can't join in. I can't afford the luxury. I have too many
>urgent needs for the present and goals for tomorrow. I want those
>needs satisfied and those goals fulfilled, but the last century has
>proved again and again that ideologies aren't especially helpful at
>achieving practical goals.
>
>Moreover, recent advances in anthropology, neuroscience and
>complexity theory all converge toward one conclusion; even the most
>compelling or beguiling ideological description can never encompass
>the range of emergent and often contradictory qualities contained in
>a single human being, let alone whole societies.
Straw man: Political ideologies aren't about encompassing all of the
qualities in a human being. They're more about the goals of the
society and how to go about achieving those goals - so learning that
Libertarian principles don't have all mutations of Human DNA in them
does nothing to diminish the validity of their political ideas.
>What do I need right now? Because I'm a brash eccentric, I need a
>society that is open, tolerant, even welcoming of eccentricity. One
>whose institutions are accountable enough to minimize the inevitable
>capricious power abuses that fester in every human culture. One
>where competition takes place under conditions that maximize fair
>comparison of quality (in goods, services, and ideas) while
>minimizing the destructive effects of our most loathsome human trait
>-- our talent for rationalizing cheating and oppression.
>
>What do I want for tomorrow? A world where coercion is minimized
>and individuals are free to achieve the maximum they can by making
>fair deals with each other, leveraging off others' talents and
>benefiting from the mutual criticism that only true freedom
>engenders.
>
>Now I concede -- heck, I avow! -- that these desiderata sound
>awfully libertarian. But let's recall that, ironically, the same
>futurist dream was shared by idealizing Marxists!
I'm no expert on Marxism, but did the Marxists believe in trading for
things or leveraging talents for any sort of personal gain? If
someone needed something, you gave it to them if you could: From each
his ability, to each his need. Melding Marxism and Libertarianism
seems disingenuous at best.
> They, too, envisioned a final destination without states or any
>coercive institutions, only human beings interacting autonomously.
>The chief difference was always over the right path to achieve that
>envisioned paradise of emancipated individuals. Marxists fantasized
>that it would emerge semi-violently from some "final stage of
>industrial capitalization" -- as if that ongoing task could ever be
>finished! Libertarians, on the other hand, see the ultimate
>apotheosis of individualism coming as a result of...
>
>Well, here's where we have a problem, because there are some real
>contradictions that I seldom hear my libertarian friends talk about.
>Especially over the basic difference between evolution and
>revolution.
>
>Revolution is far more gut-satisfying and romantic, but in order to
>justify it, you must assume the worst. To hear some true-believers
>rail against today's society, you'd think we live in a wretched
>Orwellian dictatorship filled with bovine Democrats, porcine
>Republicans, and sheeplike voters, all of them too stupid to
>perceive the Truth.
>
>*
>
>I admit that I'm drawn to these characters, because of their
>admirable passion. I find much that's appealing about their ardent
>dream of a better world. Alas, their stern righteousness makes them
>irresistible targets for playful teasing. For instance, I find that
>nothing causes these delightfully articulate firebrands to go
>tongue-locked more efficiently than asking the following question.
>Can you name one human civilization, past or present, that was even
>half as close to what you desire as contemporary America is today?
>
>Like their spiritual cousins -- radical feminists -- these fellows
>enjoy the indignant rush of knowing they are right. And like
>radical feminists, they find it galling to be reminded how far
>freedom has already come. Or how this culture seems almost designed
>to bring them about. Or that their citizenship may have real value
>in a civilization that -- while still flawed -- is nevertheless more
>hope-filled and worthy of the name than any other. A civilization
>that seems already to be moving in the direction they desire.
>
>*
[ Deleted digression into revolutionary SF portrayals of Libertarianism. ]
>Drop by http://www.kithrup.com/brin/ (or http://www.davidbrin.com/ )
>and see my "questionnaire on ideology".
I encourage you to follow the above links and look at the questions.
They're so loaded and riddled with false dichotomies that they seem -
to me - to be farcical.
>Does the commonly held libertarian self-image - as a doctrine
>arising solely from evidence and reason -- really hold? The answer
>may embarrass you.
Ad Hominem.
>For example, do you want to talk about propaganda? I'll show you
>propaganda! Modern western media messages -- e.g. in nearly every
>Hollywood movie -- emphasize in-your-face individualism and
>suspicion of authority, pounding these themes more relentlessly than
>any other motif in human history. Never before has an idea been
>given such play! So might our libertarian attitudes actually arise
>from this everpresent indoctrination? From lessons we've imbibed
>since childhood, suckling them from the teat of a society that is
>much less conformist and more cherishing of individualism than we
>let ourselves imagine?
Here's a cause and effect problem. The "in-your-face individualism"
expressed in movies could be (and is most likely, IMO) a reflection
of pre-existing human desires, not the cultivation of them.
>When I mention this in public, some audience members greet the
>apparent paradox with displeasure, even anger. It's discomfiting to
>imagine that a proudly singular trait might have arisen from
>relentless propaganda! How much more satisfying to say to yourself
>-- "I invented individualism and rebellion!"
Fallacious a priori. He's proven no paradox.
[ Snipped his conclusions that now have no sound arguments upon which
to stand. ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT