So as I was explaining to a fellow employee how logical arguments work starting from this thing called a "premise" I realized that now one knows anything about logic. One of the best courses I ever took in my illustrious collage career was Logic. Because most people don't realize that Logic is an actual science to forum arguments they ignore the rules of logic resulting in them being jerked around by those with a crafty ability to use it effectively.
But for many things a rudimentary knowledge of logic isn't even necessary, simply paying attention to past actions and figuring the future results based on these experiences should be enough to figure most things out. Even cave men at some point figured out that gravity existed, they couldn't explain it but they knew that if they fell off a cliff they died. As a result of their combined experience cave men everywhere avoided cliffs and everyone lived longer life's.
This simple survival technique seems to be absent in modern man however. Take for example two current political discussions.
#1 The case of one Bernard Madoff. Here you have a guy who operated a Ponzi scheme. For those of you who don't know this little scheme was dreamed up to get people to pay into an "investment" and then pay them their dividends from the money you take from some one else. Eventually as in Madoff's case the money runs out and if your the sap stuck at the end of the scheme your screwed. Clearly this is a bad idea and everyone is now up in arms asking "how could the government allow this to happen" and my favorite "this shows that we need for more regulation in the free market." First of all the government already operates the worlds largest Ponzi scheme known as "Social Security" It in every way is a Ponzi scheme because it takes my "savings" and gives it to some one else on the guarantee that there will be some for me when I get old. Just so your clear on this one, Ponzi scheme run by a individual, bad. Ponzi scheme run by the government, good.
Peoples other reaction of "this is why we need more regulation in the free market" is equally as silly. The same people who say this will also tell you that they are tired of this "free market" system here in America. But wouldn't saying "more regulation" indicate that we already have regulation? And if we already have regulation by the government wouldn't this thereby make it something other then a "free market" system? It would and we don't have a free system, we have a mixed market system watched over by an incompetent government. How about instead of crying for more regulation we actually try the whole free market thing? I mean lets face it, we all know that everything government touches turns to garbage so why not have the original hands off ideas our founders wanted put into place?
#2 The silly argument is that to get out of our current economic down turn we need to "spend more money." So let me get this one right, we got here because people over stretched their credit and we had a fallout with sub prime home owners going into default on their loans, basically spending money they didn't have. So to fix this national debit we have created we will create more debt? If I ran my house like this creditors would come and take away everything I "own." The result will be the same for the country. By taking money out of the individuals hands and allowing the government to spend it it will lengthen the down turn if not create a depression. If they don't raise taxes but just print more money they devalue the currency and make our national debt even larger.
Again though they will get away with it all. Not only because people do not think logically but because the new season of American Idol is on and the nation can begin talking about that as apposed to what the politicians are doing in Washington.