Who's Online
We have 139 guests and 1 member online
Business News Feed
|
Reuters: Business News
|
| Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. |
|
-
Car sales plunge heralding bleak 2009
DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. auto sales plunged by 36 percent in December led by outsized declines at Chrysler LLC, Hyundai Motor and Toyota Motor Corp as the battered industry closed...
-
Apple's Jobs reassures investors about his health
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc Chief Executive Steve Jobs sought to soothe investor concerns about his health on Monday, saying his weight loss was caused by a hormone imbalance...
-
Prosecutors seek to jail Madoff
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors asked a judge to jail accused swindler Bernard Madoff on Monday, saying he sent jewelry and other items worth more than $1 million to...
-
Economists seek solutions, signs of life in housing
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Top economists at the Allied Social Sciences Association's annual meeting have been searching -- in some cases, in vain -- for signs of life in the...
-
Stocks slip on telecom and financials; Apple jumps
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks fell on Monday as investors booked profits after last week's run-up, while concerns about slowing cell phone sales hit shares of the biggest telecommunications companies. |
|
Written by Jordan Brown
|
|
Monday, 13 October 2008 18:15 |
False Dichotomies and the Growth of the State
The state, as defined by Max Weber and accepted by most political theorists, is an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographic area. While there are variations of this definition, I believe it highlights the central feature of most nation states—the use of force. The legitimacy of a particular, or perhaps any, nation state’s monopoly on force can be disputed, but little coherent argument can be made against the fact that the state, as it commonly exists, is primarily an exerciser of force.
A state that ceases to enforce its laws—even if that enforcement was sporadic or illegitimate in the eyes of the most or all of the citizens—ceases to exist as a state. Obviously, in the creation and enforcement of laws, choice is restricted. Fines, prison time, and other methods of punishment make some activities very unattractive to the majority of people, thus fulfilling the alleged purpose of the state and leading to a safer society for everyone.
Of course, along with murderers we often punish those who have merely made a choice the state decides is poor, such as the choice to smoke marijuana or drive without a seat belt, but such laws are visible and easy for the freedom-lover to identify and oppose, with varying degrees of success. What is more difficult to oppose, and perhaps most effective from the perspective of the statists, is the reduction of choice through the implication of a false dichotomy or false dilemma.
Like legislation, a false dichotomy is used by the state, the media, and others to limit choice. Unlike legislation, the false dichotomy does not involve the use of physical violence--although force will likely be used if enough people see through the ruse--but rather deception and obfuscation. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is George Bush’s September 2001 speech, in which he stated, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Of particular interest currently is the presidential race, in which the American people are presented with a grand total of two candidates to choose from. Never mind the statists’ claim that voting is the most important thing you will ever do, and that the office of the President of the United States is supposedly the most prestigious in the world, we have a wider range of choices in toothpaste than we do in presidential elections.
Both presidential candidates support a slew of policies I find abhorrent and strikingly similar, yet millions of people will line up to scream, yell, and throw stuff in support of ‘their’ candidate, while movie stars, musicians, and athletes devote time and money to convince me how wonderful and important it is to cast a ballot for Barack Obama or John McCain. The same applies to elections at every level of government, in which the choice to vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all, isn’t even discussed.
Another recent example of a false dichotomy was the conflict between Russia and Georgia, in which most Americans lined up to support Georgia, because, well, Georgia isn’t Russia, and those were the choices we had, right?
The same thinking was used to push through the bailout, because it was either spend $700 billion or the economy collapses. No other plans were discussed, nor was it ever explained why $700 billion would save the economy, but $683 billion—or any other figure or course of action or inaction—wouldn’t.
The media loves these false dilemmas, artificial though they may be, because they are simple to cover and involve more melodrama than a soap opera. John McCain and his supporters are portrayed as the polar opposite of Barack Obama and his supporters, and all of us are lumped in one camp or the other. That kind of drama appeals to the Us vs. Them, Good Guys vs. Bad Guys mentality, and it makes for exciting—albeit hollow—news. It also creates a feeling of inclusion, because if two parties represent the entire range of choices in American politics, surely all of us must have a stake in one or the other.
If instead, attention was also given to third party candidates, or to principled reasons for not voting, Barack Obama and John McCain would have to explain why they agree so much, instead of attacking each other over absurd e-mail forwards like they do now. This would benefit those of us not invested in the state, as real issues would be discussed and real differences acknowledged. But it would not be in the best interest of the talking heads, who would be forced to explain why a candidate like Ron Paul could hold positions that are supposedly exclusive to one of the two diametrically opposed ‘major’ parties. The shallow left/right drama would be replaced by real discussions of real issues, and that just doesn’t boost the ratings like having Bill O’Reilly yell at someone for an hour.
The state itself has an even bigger incentive than the media to promote false dichotomies. Creating and enforcing laws is expensive, time-consuming, and not entirely effective, and people like Ron Paul and the readers of this site make it even more difficult for the state to act with impunity. Why let people choose the carrot or the stick, or neither one, when you can convince them that choosing between two nearly identical sticks means they are free? If people are busy fighting over the merits of one terrible party or petty policy position over another, they aren’t questioning the state or its legitimacy: Republican or Democrat, Russia or Georgia, fascism or socialism, the state goes marching on.
The upside side to all of this is that it’s easy to recognize, and help others recognize, false dichotomies. Unlike legislation, which is backed by men with guns, bad information only hurts if you let it. If you find yourself defending the indefensible, voting for the lesser of two evils, or arguing within a state-created box, take a step back and recognize the range of choices in any given situation. If we all do this, not just on election day but every day, we will be considerably closer to a free society. |
|
|
|
