Yes, but why them, and not someone else?
Jun 11th, 2009 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
What with the Obamanians taking control of things left and right, I would like to suggest you have the following conversation with yourself, or anyone else who brings up the issue.
Person A: “The government needs to do x.”
Person B: “Okay. Why?”
Person A: “Because it needs to be done!”
Person B: “Okay. But why should the government be the one to do it?”
Person A: “Because it won’t get done otherwise.”
Person B: “Okay. And what is it about government that it can get stuff done when other groups couldn’t?”
Person A: “Because they can make it a law that people have to do it.”
Person B: “So the government should do x because it’s the only group that can force people to do things.”
Person A: “Right.”
Person B: “What does the government use to force people to do things?”
Person A: “Laws.”
Person B: “Laws don’t force anything unless they’re enforced. How does a government enforce its laws?”
Person A: “The police.”
Person B: “You mean the people trained to use guns and violence, and who hold people against their wills in jails?”
Person A: “Right. The police.”
Person B: “What other things do you think the people who control the people with the guns and jails should use those people to force other people to do?”
Person A: “Well, y, z, a, b.”
Person B: “Okay. Well, I think the people who control the people with the guns should tell the people with the guns to force people to do not-y, not-z, not-a, and not-b. How are we going to decide which of us should get to use the people with guns to force other people to do things?”
Person A: “By voting.”
Person B: “You mean, you should get to make the people who control the people with the guns make those people use their guns to make people do things, if and because a plurality of people agree with you?”
Person A: “Yes.”
Person B: “Thanks. I just wanted to be clear.”
