Two beautiful reductios

Economics Political Theory
1

Allow me to preface this with this by saying these are not quite reductios. The first is more of a cognitive dissonance and the second is a contradiction. Yet I feel cool saying reductio ad absurdum :P.

Furthermore, these are just seedling ideas. I have not yet developed them into foolproof arguments (which I do plan to do). So here it goes.

  1. The savage reductio – I thought of this when my friend said that public education is necessary and that the benefits of an educated public and workforce outweigh the stealing of property.

Assume he is correct: since the benefits outweigh the costs, then surely the benefits also outweigh the formality of having 51% of the people accept a law. Hence, we should institute public education through force even if a majority disagree with it. Why? Because it improves us. We’re better off.

Now, we find a hitherto unseen tribe on a newly-discovered island off of Oregon state. These guys are savages, and though they have not discovered metalworking, they do have a political system and an advanced societal structure with division of labor in a sort of factory-style system. There is also a store of knowledge that they have (about the island surrounding them, their internal political system, primitive philosophy, herbs, traps, etc). There is a sort of public school system, where children are taught this information. Note that this information in the books actually also exists in the public, in the form of privately-owned books and knowledge in people’s minds. So there are ways to get this information. In general, these guys are a primitive version of our society in many ways.

However, the island suddenly becomes ruled by snobby fat and backwards people who don’t want to educate those who are beneath their social status. Now 51% of the island is staunchly against public education, and the system is scrapped. The blueprints for the system, the inner workings, and records pf the people from whom taxes had to be taken are still left recorded in books stored in some known house.

So again, you find this island of savages. You are disgusted that the public is not taught about herbs, berries, making traps, and some form of philosophy or religion.

Question: are you justified in using force to take the property of some savages and reinstitute a public school system? Can you become involved in their affairs with aggression, knowing full well better than they do the goodness that can come out such a system?

A possible complaint: they’re a whole different culture!

It doesn’t matter. You would simply be reinstituting the old education system. As I said, the blueprints are there. The teachers are still alive.

Perhaps another the complaint is: but they’re a different group of people!

But how are they different from the group of people you currently use force against in the US?

Third complaint: I cannot interfere with them. They must do it themselves.

So what gives you power over your fellow countrymen and not the saveges?

  1. The Gaga reductio – I named this the Gaga reductio because I thought of it after reading an article about Lady Gaga in which she revealed that the smokes pot when writing her songs.

This is supposed to show that Keynesianism/utilitarianism and rule of law are incompatible (sorry for lumping K with U, a possibly incorrect lumping; if someone wants me to readjust my wording, please feel free to comment).

Here it is:

Assume we want 1) rule of law (no one is above the law), and 2) prosecution of drug users.

Rule of law says that we should investigate Gaga for her claim to possession of drugs. However, do notice that Gaga drives the market. Tons of people like her, people buy her songs, money flows. Utilitarianism says that we may tolerate faults if the benefits outweigh. Whatever did Gaga smoking a bit of pot do? She’s helping money flow through the economy. Hence, we make an exception for her, and she is not above the rule of law.

But it doesn’t have to end here. Steve Jobs may have killed a hobo. A guy no one cared about. He was sane, didn’t shower, and was staunchly racist and sexist. He went out of his way to curse out people for their sins. And Steve Jobs killed him.

You see, humanity gained nothing out of the hobo’s existence. And Steve Jobs helps the economy so much: he provides competition to Microsoft, helps money flow, provides ways for better communication for smoother running of other businesses (iPhone), and gives everyone music through iTunes. And assume that his company is structured so that at any moment, he may, justly, with the wave of his hand, entirely demolish it (after having paid back all debts).

Question: should we arrest Steve Jobs and sentence him to years and years of prison, who, if displeased, may wave away Apple and thus cause us much grief? Do we not gain more utility out of having him be free? Should we arrest Gaga and give her an actual jail term (so maybe 5 years, unlike Hilton), where she will lose her potential?

We see that if we want Keynesian utilitarianism, we must drop rule of law.

Please help me patch up any potential holes in these two arguments and suggest possible counters that people would use. I want to make these bulletproof, if possible.

2

I don’t know how things work in the land of the free and the home of the brave, but in this socialist hellhole, a positive entitlement to education is entrenched in the constitution, and judges are expected to be utilitarian about their sentencing.

One can always say that to enforce the rule of law is the most utilitarian thing to do in the long run, but then I suppose that analogous to saying that allowing capitalism to take it’s impartial and majestic course is also the most utilitarian thing to do in the long run.

3

Bump. Please read, not too long

4

Earlier you say:

The assumption answers the question, so you aren’t saying much of anything here. You’ve essentially said “assume x is ok,” then told a story, then asked “is x ok?”

And again you earlier state:

If we actually assume 1 and 2, then yes, we arrest Jobs and Gaga. The reality is, nobody cares about 2, and if they do, they probably don’t even know who Lady Gaga is. There is a huge difference between prosecution of drug users as a whole, and the varied positions people actually hold about drugs. But either way, in both “reductios” you’ve made stipulations which answer your questions.

Going back to public education, your best bet is to show how compulsory schooling fails to achieve the goals it sets for itself. All this talk about imposing this or that on these people or those people is really a different issue; is it okay to use force, coercion, aggression, etc. in some cases and not others. I’m sure your answer as a libertarian is a unilateral NO, but for someone who takes a different stance, these little scenarios aren’t particularly problematic. The same goes for the Gaga stuff. Instead of tricking people into paradoxes that they can probably slip out of, just illustrate how drug laws cause more harm than good.

Also, Keynesianism is a school of economic thought that has nothing to do with utilitarianism in the way you are using it. The kind of utilitarianism you are hinting at (“the greatest good for the greatest number”) was developed by Jeremy Bentham, but I don’t think anyone takes it very seriously anymore.

5

The assumption answers the question

I show where the assumption leads and then ask to reconsider the assumption if it leads to that conclusion.

your best bet is to show how compulsory schooling fails to achieve the goals it sets for itself

Then the opposing argument is always “I agree X must be changed, but that doesn’t mean government shouldn’t do it.”

Also, Keynesianism is a school of economic thought that has nothing to do with utilitarianism in the way you are using it

Am I wrong in saying that the Keynesian claim is that taking money from some is fine as long as it improves the collective good?

6

Yes you are wrong in saying that. If a Keynesian says that government spending on infrastructure will help to stimulate employment, he isn’t saying anything about the morality of such an action. If a doctor says that a c-section will save the baby’s life but kill the mother, it is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CLAIM from saying that killing a mother is fine as long as it saves the baby.

7

Ah, so positive vs. normative. Ok. But does making the main noun “utilitarianism” and using Keynesian as an adjective fix my mistake? Because then I say that utilitarianism using Keynesian methods is incompatible with rule of law.