Apologists and Cherry-Pickers

I had one of "those" conversations the other day, where someone thought he'd 'gotcha' my libertarianism by trotting out the "so, no zoning laws - you'd be OK with a chemical plant next to your house?" straw man when I mentioned we've got too many laws and too many restrictions on our liberty and property rights.

Why, you might ponder, would one leap to that extreme in such an argument?

For the same reason that the Government shuts down the Washington Monument and the national parks whenever the debt ceiling is reached or federal discretionary spending authorizations run out - as an emotional ploy to win an otherwise-indefensible argument.

That we have too many laws and restrictions is obvious to anyone willing to even consider the point. In New York State, it is illegal to speak to anyone in an elevator: "While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door." It is illegal to wear slippers in public past 10PM. You need a license to have a clothesline.

Such absurdities are, of course, never enforced, and while their presence on the books suggests that an occasional purge is warranted, the real utility of digging these up is as a springboard for "what other counterproductive or liberty-infringing rules are there?"

Rent control laws that have done far more to limit available housing and drive up rents in market-rate units, for one. Onerous or labyrinthine or inscrutable or "legal opinion required" zoning laws are another.

Rather than have a conversation about "how much is too much," though, the anti-libertarian reflex is a reductio ad nihilum, as if, in this straw man, there's the slightest chance that every zoning law will be wiped away, *and* that somebody will suddenly decide that there's greater economic benefit in citing a chemical factory in the middle of a residential neighborhood than where land is cheap and there are no neighbors to hassle you. Fact is, everything is evolutionary, and even a concerted attempt at reducing zoning laws would happen slowly and in minor increments. So, no, nihilum is not worth discussing, because it's not going to happen.

It's the same farce as the Libertarianism-101 trope about "muh roads!" If you're not familiar with it, click this link. If you are, but want to know what a better, real-world way to pay for roads is, click this link.

That's not what the "gotchas" care about, though. Instead, it's about mocking the libertarian viewpoint, perhaps to dissuade defectors from their team, rather than engaging and rebutting it substantively. It's about pounding the table when you have neither the facts nor the law on your side.

Just as politicians and bureaucrats do all the time. That "1" is a thing, with over six million Google hits, tells the tale.

To what end? As big government apologia, because one still believes that public servants are both caring and capable? As "I got the regulations I like" cherry-picking that favor something the apologist likes, or protects the apologist from competition, or absolves the apologist from having to engage in some form of personal responsibility? If big-government is a Good Thing, it should stand up to scrutiny, and not rely on deflections and argument-trickery.

Defending your views takes work, but if you're going to engage someone over his contrary views, you should be willing to do the work, and not resort to farcicalities to win the debate.