Saturday, April 10, 2010

Disbelief ≠ Pro-Government

Says Landon Oakes:
"So-called skeptics claim that they no longer believe in the superstitions and vain ideas of old; but this is only partly true: the more skeptical one becomes of God the less skeptical he becomes of government. Of all the tried ideas, including religious belief, none has been disproved so thoroughly as a large government."
See article here.

See my response here: false. Many a skeptic are anarchists, and apolitical. They really couldn't give a whit about governmental ideas and systems. Freethinking libertarians are necessarily disinterested in government, and avoid the titles 'anarchist' or 'minarchist' because they don't want to answer to the governments that would hold them in suspicion because of their philosophical anarchism.

More, the above quote is post hoc ergo propter hoc, and a prime example of the missing middle. Exactly how does the disbelief in God entail the support of government? More, what are the steps between disbelief in God that lead to endorsing governmental structures.

Perhaps the cracked lense of American politics breeds this kind of black-and-white thinking. Especially on the right-wing diet. Too bad black-and-white thinking forgets the spectrum of colours outside of its self-imposed limitations.

2 comments:

Landon O. said...

There is nothing in skepticism that entails belief in big government, I have only noticed a trend that one would have to be blind to miss. Of course there are many who are not left-wingers but it flies in the face of reality to deny that big government support is overwhelmingly secular and those who oppose it are overwhelmingly religious. So I raise the question: with the failure of big governments in the last hundred years why not be skeptical of government, too?

Also, please don't take my little paragraph as an argument. There is no fallacy if there is no argument, mine had none, only an observation.

Thanks for replying!

Landon

Kane Augustus said...

Landon,

You're welcome on the reply. And thank you for coming back to St. Cynic and making your response.

I absolutely agree with you that American evangelicalism is the largest support network of big government in the U.S.A. Comments about idolatry come to mind here, but I digress.

As to being skeptical about government, I think the religious would do well to be skeptical, even disbelieving of government. Here in Canada, the government is known as the "Crown" (referring back to our colonial owings with Britain), and the Crown identifies itself as a 'corporation'. Ergo, our government is a corporation, which, if you've done your research, is in fact a legal fiction. See the movie The Corporation, for more information on that front.

In any case, I have no attachment to government other than what is legally required of me to function in society. After that, they can kiss my ass.

As to your article, you wrote:

"Also, please don't take my little paragraph as an argument. There is no fallacy if there is no argument, mine had none, only an observation."

This is untrue. Not in the sense that you are lying. That's not the case. However, your "little paragraph" consists of not just observations, but two very distinct conclusions that rest on implicit arguments:

1. "[...]the more skeptical one becomes of God the less skeptical he becomes of government."

2. "Of all the tried ideas, including religious belief, none has been disproved so thoroughly as a large government."

These are conclusions based on a certain line of thinking. My response to your implicit arguments was diverging from your overall point, but valid nonetheless. Hence you were not simply making "observations", you were concluding with "evaluations" of information you did not include (thus the implicit nature of your arguments).

Cheers!