It’s not difficult to find a formal or informal logical fallacy in every aspect of politics but one of the most predominant used by those trying to defend it is denying the antecedent in order to justify what the state does. Denying the antecedent is when it is fallaciously assumed that if one thing leads to another, then the lack of that one thing will lead to the lack of the other. It’s when someone argues: without [insert government program here] there wouldn’t be [insert benefit to society here]. I call it the ‘God Fallacy’ since government is assumed to be the one and only solution to a problem, without which we’d be doomed.
Formally it’s written: if P, then Q , therefore if not P, then not Q. For example: “If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job. You are not a ski instructor, therefore, you have no job.” This fallacy implies that ONLY ski instructors can have jobs which we know is false.
One of many common examples is foreign wars. Political policy says that the military is fighting terrorism over there, so we can be safe over here. Is it true that if the military was not fighting terrorism over there, we would not be safe over here? That would imply that only if the military is over there can we be safe over here which is impossible to prove and there’s no historical precedence for it. You can’t measure and quantify something that didn’t happen, such as how much terrorism didn’t happen over here thanks to the military being over there, and conclude a causal relationship. That’s a correlation and causation fallacy as well which fallaciously assumes that since two events are correlated, one caused the other such as the lions and rose petals parable. The parable says that if you put rose petals in front of your door every night before you go to bed it will keep the lions away. The fact that you haven’t seen any lions proves that rose petals work.
Some like to justify war by claiming that thanks to war, new technology was developed that wouldn’t have been otherwise. Or thanks to NASA we have cellphones etc. Again, it’s impossible to prove that something would not happen if something else did not happen. The idea that people would just sit around on their hands waiting for a government if they needed something contradicts all of human history. Many times it’s the inefficiency of government that inspires innovation and invention, not the other way around.
Another common one is law enforcement. Political policy says that law enforcement keeps us safe from crime. Is it true that without law enforcement we would not be safe from crime? It implies that only because of law enforcement can we be safe from crime. Considering there’s so much crime in society that is obviously not true and, like the military, it’s impossible to prove how much crime didn’t happen because of law enforcement so another fallacy. We have to also consider that the private security industry is a billion dollar a year industry because of people taking responsibility for their own safety. Privacy fences, motion sensor flood lights, motion sensor video surveillance, in home security systems as well as neighborhood watch programs and neighbors helping one another out. Obviously there are effective alternatives.
Welfare programs keep poor people from dying in the streets. Is it true that if there were no welfare programs, poor people would be dying in the streets? This implies that the only reason a poor person doesn’t die in the street is thanks to government welfare programs which we know is not true and, again, impossible to prove, another fallacy.
Without the ‘War on Drugs’ people would be using life threatening drugs. Is it true that the ‘War on Drugs’ prevents people from using life threatening drugs? Of course not, society is riddled with drugs of all kinds legal and illegal. In fact only a small percentage of drugs are illegal, the vast majority are legal and readily available at the ‘Drug Store’, ironically enough.
It’s because of government that there isn’t chaos. Is it true that without government there’d be chaos? This implies that the only reason I or anyone else doesn’t behave chaotically is because of the existence of government which obviously isn’t true. People behave civilized because they know it’s beneficial to them to work together with others to produce and stay safe. It’s a rational decision for individuals in a society to divide their labor and trade with one another. None of which has anything to do with a government.