On Zero-Force Arguments

On Zero-Force Arguments

and circular hypnosis    

 

I define a “zero-force argument” as one that makes its point by means that, on closer inspection, supports neither its conclusion nor its opposite, at all. It only _sounds_ relevant.

Case in point: someone states that democracy is an invalid form of government because people have irrational motives and can be manipulated by clever liars.

One could retort that people also have rational motives, and can resist manipulation; but even discounting that, it is also true that any other form of government is run by people.

Monarchy? The king is a person, with irrational motives, and manipulable. Aristocracy? The aristocrats are people, so ditto. A constitutional republic such as our own, which is theoretically a combination of democracy, monarchy and aristocracy? Ditto. So the people-are-flawed argument applies to all forms of government equally. Therefore that argument has zero force.

There are theocrats, who claim that their system is ruled by God, who is not a human person. Even were that so, then who hears the word of God? Who interprets that Word? Who carries those interpretations out? People!

I predict that in the future there will be technocrats, who claim that their system is run by computers. But who programs those computers? Who reads the printouts? Who carries out the orders? People!

Of course one could quote Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

 

What’s more, clever manipulators of people are also people, and themselves manipulable. I recall a science-fiction story. (I forget by whom. Kuttner? Kornbluth?) It is a nightmare-jest about a society under perfect control. Its Emperor is under hypnotic control by the Prime Minister; who is under hypnotic control by his therapist; who is under hypnotic control by his wife; who is under hypnotic control by her beautician; and so on down to the lowliest peasant, who is under hypnotic control by the Emperor!