The illogical nature of progressive thought

It should be no surprise that classes on logic are not a major tenet of the public education system.

Whether by a purposeful effort or an ignorant series of misguided steps, the importance of logical thinking patterns has ceased to be understood in our nation. Rather, the “what” is accented a great deal more than the “how,” and this faulty thinking can be traced directly to the nature of our political system and government itself. After examining the exact nature of this problem, an understanding of these faulty thought processes can be directly applied to the recent health care reform.

While I am not sure of my feelings about Glenn Beck, one of John Stewart’s recent attacks on the Fox News host and libertarians in general demonstrates the illogical thinking by those who advocate the use of government to correct societal ills.

Among other jabs aimed at libertarians during his Daily Show spoof, Stewart insinuated that libertarians are ridiculous in that they are against having government agencies to monitor the cleanliness of food, the quality of water, the growth of corporations, and other issues that pertain to the general welfare of society. Stewart fails to understand the nature of the libertarian argument against government, and in fact reaches faulty conclusions based on a false sketch of his ideological adversaries.

An application of logic reveals the fallaciousness of Stewart’s argument. We can begin with his premise that people should have clean food and water. Based on this premise, he advocates for the means of government agencies to monitor food and water. However, he here makes a massive jump in logic, for he assumes that the creation of government agencies tasked with monitoring food and water will in reality lead to cleaner food and water. It is on his means of government, not his premise of the need for clean food and water, that the libertarian takes issue with Stewart. The libertarian rightfully sees that the means of the government agency is not very likely to accomplish the end of cleaner food and water. In fact, government as a social tool often leads to an opposite result of what was intended.

However, Stewart mistakenly believes that the libertarian’s point of contention is the claim that people should have clean food and water. This is usually untrue, as the vast majority of libertarians agree with him on this claim. The libertarian simply thinks that the means Stewart has chosen to achieve his end, government, is more problematic than it is beneficial.

Libertarians generally agree with well-meaning leftists that goals like cleaner food and water, less corporate corruption, and more social freedom would be good things. They simply recognize that the leftist illogically sees government, which is merely a means, as the end. For example, the leftist sees the passage of a congressional bill that intends to help the poor as a good thing, while the libertarian understands that the real test of goodness is not the passage of the bill, but whether or not the bill actually ends up helping the poor.

An analysis of the history of government reveals that even government actions with good intent usually end up resulting in negative consequences. Just consider the governmental policies over the past 50 years intended to make home ownership affordable for all Americans. Such actions led directly to an economic collapse that specifically hit the housing market, and thus homeowners, like never before.

With this view of logic in mind, one can now understand why libertarians are so upset with the recent health care reform. The government-minded leftist would argue that those against the reform do not think that everyone should have access to quality health care, or were content with the current system. Neither is true, and it is in fact often the libertarian’s desire to see affordable health care for as many as possible that drives the protests of Obamacare.