Ordinarily I would not do a post on current events, but there are a couple of controversies brewing in the media right now that provide good empirical examples of a general principle. The principle is that bad arguments make the world worse. Even if you arrive at the correct conclusion, if the argument you use to get there fails or is flawed you will do more harm than good and you will damage your own integrity.
The two controversies are the so-called “ground zero mosque” and the issue of gay marriage. These two issues illustrate the same principle. In both cases I probably agree with the conclusions that the average liberal would draw, but for entirely different reasons. In fact, if the liberal were to be true his principles, to the extent he has any at all, he would have to take the opposite position.
The standard liberal argument on gay marriage is that it’s a right because we are all entitled to “equal protection” under the law. Since straight couples can marry and get tax breaks, gay couples should be able to do the same. This is the argument that was made in the court opinion that overturned the proposition 8 gay marriage ban in California. This opinion itself has now been appealed, putting gay marriage back on hold. Once again we see the ever-present threat that the state poses to gay people.
The so-called “equal protection” argument is a total fail. The ban doesn’t even violate this supposed principle. The ban as written is in fact universal. If the law says “no person may marry a person of the same sex” or “marriage is an agreement between two people of the opposite sex” or something like that, that actually applies universally. Nothing says that gay men can’t get married because they are gay. Neither gay men nor straight men can marry other men. Both straight men and gay men can marry women. This is actually the argument that conservatives make, and if “equal protection” is the principle you are working from, they are totally right. And now the court opinion that cited “equal protection” has been appealed and gay marriage is on hold again. So we see how a bad argument makes the world worse.
If the argument is based on “equal protection” presumably the state could pass any horrible law, and as long as it’s applied equally it’s fine. The state could ban all marriage altogether and this would pass the “equal protection” test. This is not a good way to defend individual rights. Not that a correct argument based on individual rights would necessarily be accepted by a government court. Courts tend to only recognize rights as belonging to groups, not individuals, so it probably wouldn’t. But people would at least maintain their integrity. Principles are important. It would be impossible to argue against this point without affirming it.
An example of a bad argument. The person that made this image made a mistake though. The figure on the right is Plato, who is the one who would be making the bad argument in favor of "god". We know it's Plato because he is pointing up to his supposed "world of perfect forms". The figure on the left is Aristotle, who would be the one to point out the failure of Plato's argument. We know it's Aristotle because his hand is flat, indicating a concern with earthly matters that we can see and touch. Oh well. Still an example of a bad argument that has made the world worse.
The liberal argument on the “ground zero mosque” is no better. It appeals to the supposed “freedom of religion” or “freedom of expression” that we are all entitled to. It’s hard to figure out exactly what the position is since the liberals have been changing their position every couple days in order to appease the savage hordes. I have not been following this very closely because quite frankly it makes me ill. I throw up a little in my mouth every time I see pictures of those animals protesting. Presumably they want to tear down the mosque and build a shrine to Rudy Giuliani or the Fire Department or something.
An argument based on “freedom of religion” is bad because it assumes that rights are granted by the state. It’s an appeal to the constitution, which is always a fail. Freedom of religion as a principle is starting way too late. This freedom is derived from each individual’s ownership of themselves. Starting your argument with freedom of religion assumes that the state owns everyone, and it just lets them have the religion they want. Fail.
Not only are liberals making bad arguments in defense of the “ground zero mosque”, but the right-wing hordes are basing their case on previous bad arguments by liberals. If you argue in favor of democracy, community values, voting and all that crap, how can you complain when people use these exact principles in a way that horrifies you? For years liberals have been saying that communities are more important than private property. They have said we should all collectively get a say in what goes on in our communities. Now we see that conservatives want to use those principles to shut down this mosque, and the best the liberals can come up with is some vague appeal to freedom of religion. Fail! Once again a bad argument making the world worse. Not that a mosque necessarily makes the world better. It probably doesn’t, but enshrining the principle that everyone gets a vote on what other people do with their own property certainly makes the world much worse, and this is exactly what liberals have been doing for years. Any liberal that says the community should get together and vote out a Walmart does not have a leg to stand on here.
The correct argument in both cases would be something like “It’s my life. It’s my body. It’s my property. Fuck off.” In philosophical terms it would be an argument appealing to self-ownership and property rights. But liberals can’t do that, because their entire philosophy rests on denying these very principles. That is why they tie themselves in knots trying to find some other way to defend what are essentially nothing more than their personal opinions. If you don’t base your defense of gay marriage, the “ground zero mosque” or anything else on the principles of property rights and individual self-ownership what are you really defending? Just your personal opinion. And why should anyone care about that?
Note: If you want to be amused and horrified check out the “We gotta stop the mosque at ground zero” song. Terrible, yet kind of catchy. I have never actually made it through the whole thing but I found myself humming it at work the other day. People thought I was weird.
Pingback: Yes, you really do own yourself | The Emptiness
Spot on my friend. Both liberals and conservatives are struggling for the same power to shape the world in a way that fits their idea of what the world should be like. It’s like grabbing the Ring of Power and trying to defeat Sauron with it. The only answer is to destroy the Ring.
Thanks Doug. I’m working on my “The state is empty” piece. Hope to have it posted by the end of the weekend.
How is appealing the Constution a fallacy when discussing the legality of a situation? Many argue for the right to build the mosque on the grounds that the Constitution stops people and government from interfering with the building of the mosque. That sounds fair to me.
But. But! You’re going to reply that if someone is wanting to build on their own private property and the laws could constitutionally restrict the actions then the laws and the Constitution are wrong, period.
Of course, the notion of self-ownership and the supremacy of private property are only advanced by Libertarians. The notion of “self-ownership” makes sense to Libertarians and no one else. After all, you don’t “own” you, you are you. It’s a pointless tautological assertion.
I never said appealing to the constitution is a fallacy. I said it was a bad argument. The argument may well work logically based on the principle you start from. But then you have made the constitution your principle and in so doing admitted that your freedom is dependent on a document written 230 years ago. You hand all power over to the state and people in black robes.
Do you break laws that will land you in jail? Are you willing to do jail time rather than restrict you freedoms? Would you join an underground movement to literally overthrow the U.S. government knowing you’ll disappear if caught? Somehow I doubt it.
How do these questions relate to his point? Sounds like a red herring to me.
If you took the time to type in a response, you are self owned. It is a self-imploding argument for you to argue against something you use to make the argument in the first place, and without which you could not possibly have an opinion of your own.
Hrm Gil. Pointless? If you don’t own yourself, then I can put you into slavery without your consent. Does that sound good?
Maybe you do own yourself after all, since you took it on yourself to respond to this post.
Yeah. I find that when people object to this point they are usually objecting to language not content. They object to the word “own” for some reason. They cannot possibly object to the content of the argument because to do so is to affirm it.
I also wonder why people WANT to object to this point. I has to be an emotional reason since the point is so obvious. Stef is good at analyzing possible emotional reasons for objecting to this.
I suspect it has to do with a subconscious understanding of the logical consequences of self ownership, and a desire to deny and avoid them. Possibly because of a fear of those in power or maybe some guilt over actions that the person has taken in the past that have denied the rights of others.
Can you own a dog against its will? Doesn’t a dog have the right to “self-ownership”? If not, why not? It’s a living being too.
A dog can’t argue.
Did the Africans consent to slavery centuries ago? Did it matter whether the Africans believed in “self-ownership” centuries ago? If someone kidnaps you and sells you into slavery – does it matter whether you believe in “self-ownership”? Will the whip hurt less or will the slave-owner immediately set you free?
Obviously not. The state also exists despite all the moral arguments we make against it. What is your point?
I suspect he is making a round about “might makes right” sort of argument.
The point then is that the Africans either didn’t own themselves or self-ownership is a bunk concept. I opt for the latter.
Good reads: Max Stirner’s The Ego and His Own and L.A. Rollins’ The Myth of Natural Rights.
I don’t really understand this self ownership concept… no-one owns themselves. If someone wanted to take you and make you their slave they could. Your self ownership doesn’t mean anything, its a human concept that has no teeth and no rights or protections. The only way you can be protected is by entering into an agreement with the members of your society to form moral definitions and institutions in order to give the members of that society the greatest level of “freedom” without overlapping into the “freedoms” of others, and these precedents are ever-changing anyway. You don’t own anything. you have no rights to anything. If a person wanted to they could take my so called “property” and my life. Without an institution and a moral consensus based on mutual benefit you don’t “own” anything. You get these things by entering into the social contract.
Just because a group of thugs enslave people against their will does not mean they don’t own themselves. The slave owners are illegitimately controlling them because they don’t have their consent. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need to force them to work and would let them be free to leave.
That is what self-ownership is all about. The ability to choose for yourself. Only those who don’t believe in freedom argue against it.
Like I said above, Gil is making a “might makes right” argument.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Bad arguments make the world worse | The Emptiness -- Topsy.com
Great post! I agree 100%!