Saturday, July 21, 2007

Question begged

There's something about left wing ideas that makes their holders assume they need no justification at all. Take this, from Chris Dillow:

I reckon it's luck, then, that explains almost all differences in income.
The question is: should luck be pooled or not? Right libertarians have good (if not compelling) reasons to say not. But if they claim much more than this, they are just inviting ridicule.
But what of the case that luck should be pooled? Apparently, it doesn't need to be made. The case for intervention can be taken as read, the case for non-intervention needs justification, so long as it isn't too strenuous, because that would be ridiculous.

Begging the question is a basic logical fallacy, but it is amazingly common when this sort of view is expounded. I have never seen a reasoned and evidenced argument in favour of the principle of income redistribution. They always, somehow, either fail the reality test, as in the society is like a caravan idea (it isn't), or fail to make the argument, engaging in circular reasoning or claiming that a moral principle underlies the opinion of the writer.

In politics, claiming a moral foundation for one's views is exactly equal to saying that your opinion is just plain right, and cannot be discussed.

This lack of enquiry into their own opinions is the cause of many of the idiocies of the left.


Anonymous said...

It may be "luck" that I'm better at writing C++ code than most people, but it's not due to luck that I show up at the office and do my job when I'd rather be at the beach.

How old is this Dillow moron? 15?

Anonymous said...

Here's another example.
"I'm against private schools in principle."
"What principle is that?" Startled look, followed by bewilderment. "What do you mean?"
"From what general statement do you infer the particular case that you oppose private schools?"