It's the same rhetoric I constantly hear: "I want Law X because I support Value Y. I want Law A because I support Value B." Advocating for something and wanting a law for it are two completely separate propositions and should be treated as such. There is a fine line between valuing something and wanting the government to place a law which would encourage the exertion of whatever that value is. It is one thing to value people getting paid a decent wage (who doesn't?); it is an entirely different idea to endorse minimum wage laws. It is one concept to value safe food being sold (who doesn't?); it is another concept to advocate for the existence of the FDA.
First, we must recognize the nature of advocating for any law. When a law is advocated for, the philosophical underlying is not to value something and enhance it through a given law, but to oppose the action or inaction that a person may commit and using governmental power to provide an incentive for people to refrain from that action or inaction. For example, take the person who values people being provided a decent wage and advocates for a minimum wage law. He may value workers receiving a decent wage, but when he advocates for the law to be put in place, he's implying that his opposition to employers not paying workers a high enough wage should be prohibited. This distinction is important: the nature of any modern government is that its citizens are permitted to commit any action unless there is a law prohibiting such action -- not the other way around. Thus, when one is concerned with the implementation of a law, he is concerned with the opposition factor rather than the endorsement factor.
Further understanding the nature of law, when prohibiting an act, the government is using its monopoly on force as a threat to deter the exercising of such act. In the case of food regulations, the intended advocacy may be safe food, but the real opposition is selling food that has not been approved by the FDA. If someone were to sell food without the proper licensing from the FDA, the home of that person would be invaded, a gun would be pointed to his head and would subsequently be chained, kidnapped, and caged. Whether or not he sold unsafe food or harmed anyone is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The intention may be to ensure safe food, but criminal law only concerns whether or not someone followed the rules that the majority of politicians at whatever time the law was implemented approved. When a law is ratified, the government grants itself legitimacy to exercise invasive and violent means to enforce it. Thus, all laws are enforced through the threat or exertion of violence. The person selling food goes through the appropriate FDA regulations because he knows he runs the risk of being arrested if he does not comply. The person employing another gives his worker the minimum wage because he knows he runs the risk of violence being initiated upon him if he does not comply (if the employee's equilibrium value is below the legal minimum wage).
From this, we can gather that when someone concerns himself with implementing a law, he advocates for the violent opposition for the opposite of what he "values." In other words, if someone says "I want Law X because I support Value Y," what this can be translated to, philosophically, is "I violently oppose the opposite of Value Y because I support Value Y." What the law advocator fails to recognize is that he is committing the jump fallacy by employing the proposition that because he, personally, peacefully opposes something, it should be violently opposed on a grand scale. One who supports Value Y typically opposes the opposite of Value Y, but there is a distinction between peaceful opposition and violent opposition. Peaceful opposition can be expressed through speech; violent opposition is expressed through force.
When the law advocator indicates that because he, personally, opposes something, it should be violently opposed, his proposition necessarily self-collapses, for if personal opposition should equate to violent opposition, nearly every act should be violently opposed, including violently opposing everything people personally oppose, given the wide range of personal opinions. "But I think it should be implemented democratically!" If that's the case, check the polling on whatever issue you concern yourself with because any opinion outside of the majority opinion is, by your own standards, mute.
No comments:
Post a Comment