# Right-wing reductio ad absurdum: Should the government be trusted to run the government? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693 "2010-10-28T19:04:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/21 "2010-10-29T05:48:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Allow me to illustrate the flaw in reductio-ad-absurdum arguments: > > \*An awful lot of left-wing rhetoric is about how horrible capitalism is. Supposedly we don’t want the market to regulate health care, private schools, private charity. And this is supposedly not because the left-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, it’s because the market is too incompetent to do these things. > > Well, if the market is so incompetent at everything (That’s the claim, isn’t it?), then, should the market be trusted to run the things it runs now? Shoes? Everyone needs shoes. How about housing? People need a house. Food? Shouldn’t the government be responsible for distributing food on the theory that markets aren’t capable of allocating essential goods? Should Wal-Mart be replaced by government food stores? > > The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the market shouldn’t even be in the business of allocating goods and services at all. Too much power for a bunch of mouth-breathing capitalists.\* > > Please refute this. Then once you’ve done so, apply the same refutation to your own OP. Isn’t there a term for this type of thing? Tu-quoque, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/22 "2010-10-29T08:23:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Allow me to illustrate the flaw in reductio-ad-absurdum arguments: > > \*An awful lot of left-wing rhetoric is about how horrible capitalism is. Supposedly we don’t want the market to regulate health care, private schools, private charity. And this is supposedly not because the left-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, it’s because the market is too incompetent to do these things. > > Well, if the market is so incompetent at everything (That’s the claim, isn’t it?), then, should the market be trusted to run the things it runs now? Shoes? Everyone needs shoes. How about housing? People need a house. Food? Shouldn’t the government be responsible for distributing food on the theory that markets aren’t capable of allocating essential goods? Should Wal-Mart be replaced by government food stores? > > The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the market shouldn’t even be in the business of allocating goods and services at all. Too much power for a bunch of mouth-breathing capitalists.\* > > Please refute this. Then once you’ve done so, apply the same refutation to your own OP. I don’t think that conclusion really follows. The common thread in all the examples seems to be the level of importance. Food? Selling me hams and eggs for dinner: Private business can do that. Making sure people don’t starve to death: Government has to step in, or it won’t get done. Housing? Selling houses, renting out apartments: Private business. Making sure people don’t freeze to death during winter because they don’t have a roof over their heads: Government. Shoes? Sure, whatever. I mean you gotta throw the capitalists a bone here and there. Make them feel like they’re contributing. It would be silly anyway to have government step in and regulate all kinds of inconsequential things where they’re not needed, its just more hassle for everyone. I’m sure the government could sell shoes just fine, but they have no particular motivation to step in where they’re not needed or wanted. But when it’s _really_ important the job gets done right, you get the government to do it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/23 "2010-10-29T12:55:12Z")
> [@andy9000](#): > > if you take the anti-government tea party argument that the government can’t do anything to it’s logical conclusion then yes you are left with a government that shouldn’t run the courts or police Well, yes, if someone makes the argument that “the government can’t do anything”, that would be the logical conclusion.. Except no one has yet quoted anyone actually making that argument. Those people would be called anarchists, not tea partiers. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/24 "2010-10-29T14:02:29Z")
Look, let me just spell it out for you guys. > [@Ludovic](#): > > If they want to argue a naked assertion of government incompetence They/we don’t. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Well, if the government is so incompetent at \*everything \*(That’s the claim, isn’t it?) NO, THAT ISN’T THE CLAIM. There. Someone said it directly. Now let me fill in your part: “But the tea party says it!” Now here’s my part: No, they don’t. Or at least, you’re taking their hyperbole literally. Seriously, folks, that’s why **Sam Stone** is changing your quote to show you how absurd it is. Clearly no one on the left says “the market doesn’t work for anything”. Clearly **John Mace** is trying to get you to show someone that says the OP’s assertion because then you’ll realize that no one actually says that. It’s not that hard, people. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Isn’t there a term for this type of thing? Tu-quoque, perhaps? No, the term for that would be “non tu quoque”…“not you either”. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/25 "2010-10-29T15:08:14Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > NO, THAT ISN’T THE CLAIM. There. Someone said it directly. But you left out the most important part… What _is_ the claim then? This part of the OP seems pretty uncontroversial: > [@foolsguinea](#): > > An awful lot of right-wing rhetoric is about how horrible the government is. how horrible _government_ is. Supposedly we don’t want government-run health care, government-run schools, government charity. And this is supposedly not because the right-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, and if this part is false: > [@foolsguinea](#): > > it’s because the government is too incompetent to do these things. then what _is_ the reason they want to do those things? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/26 "2010-10-29T15:10:16Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Look, let me just spell it out for you guys. > > They/we don’t. I must be hallucinating all of the case studies the teabaggers use in their shouts to stop the growth of federal government. All I hear is that the government can’t do anything right. I don’t think I’ve seen a single substantive argument that the government is specifically less efficient at, say, postal delivery, or health care, from tea party activists, rather than simply asserting “well, we all know the government is inefficient, so we could save money by privatization.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/27 "2010-10-29T15:15:05Z")
Well, for most conservatives, perhaps, it’s an exaggeration of right-wing rhetoric. But there do tend to be a few in the crowd who interpret things that way. I didn’t give a cite at first because you don’t know my mom, & you didn’t know me as a teenager. It was a short walk from Reaganism to anarchism for me. Really, I’m arguing against one rather silly take on right-wing philosophy. But the denunciation of “three-letter agencies” goes back to the 1930’s, so there is something there that needs to be confronted. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/28 "2010-10-29T15:58:17Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > An awful lot of right-wing rhetoric is about how horrible the government is. how horrible _government_ is. Supposedly we don’t want government-run health care, government-run schools, government charity. And this is supposedly not because the right-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, it’s because the government is too incompetent to do these things. I don’t think the general idea is that government is necessarily bad, but that the free-market is superior at certain tasks under certain circumstances, and the reverse is true as well. For example, free-market is likely to be superior where there is potentially a difference in the quality of a given product or service based upon how much one is willing to pay, or where a profit motive is easy to invent. Government is probably superior in situations where everyone benefits roughly the same, where it’s only really useful if everyone has access to it and everyone pays for it, or where a profit motive is either difficult to envision or results in a conflict of interest. > [@](#): > > Well, if the government is so incompetent at \*everything \*(That’s the claim, isn’t it?), then, should the government be trusted to run the things it runs now? Prisons? How about courts? Police? Should the IRS be replaced by a privately held agency on the theory that the government can’t even fund itself competently? Do we trust the government to run a military responsibly? Depending on how one sways politically, some of those one could make arguments for in either direction. For instance, I’ve seen arguments for things like courts and prisons being able to go to the free-market, but a lot of people might see those as potential conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, something like schools is probably a little easier to understand how, with government, everyone gets more or less a basic level of eduction, but with privatization, one can pay more money to get a better education. At the same time, only the most extreme toward the anarchist side will ever think that government shouldn’t handle things like national defense, and only the most extreme on the other side would ever think that the free market shouldn’t handle provisions of things like cars. > [@](#): > > The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the government shouldn’t even be in the government business. Too much power for a bunch of mouth-breathing incompetents like a government. Interestingly enough, I think there’s still some truth to this conclusion. Conflicts of interest arise all the time in government, and we constantly hear about various pork funds and unrelated amendments and withholding of votes and such. These are the sorts of things that government is supposed to be free of so that it can do what it’s supposed to do. But, perhaps, if government were only focusing on the sorts of things that don’t really provide profit motive, maybe much of that sort of corruption would go away because there really wouldn’t be any reason for bribes and all that. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/29 "2010-10-29T16:09:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It seems some people are bound and determined to make sweeping generalizations about what ‘the right’ or ‘tea partyers’ think, while refusing to do the same with the left. > > Unless you can show me that there are no people on the right who both oppose, say, FDA restrictions will approving of other government functions, the reductio absurdum argument falls on its face. > > For myself, I have good reasons for opposing the government policies I oppose, and supporting the ones I support. I believe I’m logically consistent. I’m not an anarchist. > > One more thing: even if you think government is generally flawed and inefficient, it’s still reasonable to prefer government action in cases where you believe the alternative is worse. The right likes to portray the left as radicals in moderates’ clothing, while they themselves are apparently moderates in radicals’ clothing. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/30 "2010-10-29T16:12:34Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > and if this part is false: > then what _is_ the reason they want to do those things? That part isn’t necessarily false. It says the government is bad that **those** things. It doesn’t say the government is bad at all things. The OP says “If conservatives don’t want the government to run health care insurance, why do they want the government to run national defense?” Do you agree that that’s what the OP is saying? Do you then further see that it’s as stupid as saying “If a construction worker doesn’t want to use a jackhammer to install plumbing, why do they want to use it to break up concrete?” In case I have to spell it out for everyone, a jackhammer is good at breaking up concrete and bad at installing plumbing. Similarly, the government is bad at health care but good at national defense. The OP seems to imply that conservatives think that the government is bad at all things. That is false and a complete strawman. Conservatives don’t claim that. Those people are called anarchists, which conservatives are not. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/31 "2010-10-29T16:26:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe, but I still would prefer to debate the merits of an assertion that someone actually made, rather than some unsubstantiated statement about what people on “the right” think. But even then, if there are so many people out there on “the right” who think government sucks at everything, it should be easy to find at least a few who think that the military is incompetent. > > Having said that, anyone who says “governments can’t do anything right” is either mistaken, or painting with a broad brush. A bit early for the tea party but surely you remember: > [@](#): > > In 1980 Ronald Reagan famously announced, and often repeated, that the government was not the solution; the government was the problem. From [here](http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=463) after a very quick search. Now, I admit “always” is a bit of hyperbole. Even the right doesn’t say that - the point of the OP is that if they were consistent, they should. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/32 "2010-10-29T16:29:58Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I must be hallucinating all of the case studies the teabaggers use in their shouts to stop the growth of federal government. The belief that the federal government has grown too much is hardly the same thing as a claim that the government cannot do anything right. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’ve seen a single substantive argument that the government is specifically less efficient at, say, postal delivery, or health care, from tea party activists… So in fact they **don’t** say that the government is worse in every specific case. As mentioned, people who claim the government shouldn’t do anything are anarchists, not tea partiers. Like the dear departed **SmashTheState**. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/33 "2010-10-29T16:43:30Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > That part isn’t necessarily false. It says the government is bad that **those** things. It doesn’t say the government is bad at all things. The OP says “If conservatives don’t want the government to run health care insurance, why do they want the government to run national defense?” Do you agree that that’s what the OP is saying? Do you then further see that it’s as stupid as saying “If a construction worker doesn’t want to use a jackhammer to install plumbing, why do they want to use it to break up concrete?” > > In case I have to spell it out for everyone, a jackhammer is good at breaking up concrete and bad at installing plumbing. Similarly, the government is bad at health care but good at national defense. > > The OP seems to imply that conservatives think that the government is bad at all things. That is false and a complete strawman. Conservatives don’t claim that. Those people are called anarchists, which conservatives are not. Anarchists think that the government should not run anything - I do not believe they care whether the government does a good job or not. If you think that government is automatically oppressive, you hardly worry about if they oppress effectively, do you? Now, perhaps in your world radical right wingers carefully consider the costs and benefits of each function, and decide accordingly. Down here on this planet they have a bias against government doing anything - except military and police functions, and probably a few others. The OP is saying that conservatives should come out against government control of these functions to be consistent. Accusing the OP of accusing conservatives of being against all government functions totally misses the point. If they applied some consistent criteria to decide whether government should or shouldn’t do something, it would be fine. But anyone who says Social Security is inefficient is ignoring the facts. I think the conclusion we can draw is that the concern with government competence is a lie, and the real cause of calls for privatization lie elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/34 "2010-10-29T17:12:37Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the government shouldn’t even be in the government business. It seems to me that anyone who is “in the government business” **is** (a part of) the government. The suggestion that someone outside “the government” run “the government” is impossible by definition. See, e.g., [here](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government), 1, 3a and 5. The time required to communicate political ideas is valuable. The Tea Party members don’t want to waste it listing all the things they believe the government should be involved in. After all, this list would be something they had in common with other Republicans, and with Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/35 "2010-10-29T17:40:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Now, perhaps in your world radical right wingers carefully consider the costs and benefits of each function, and decide accordingly. Down here on this planet they have a bias against government doing anything - except military and police functions, and probably a few others. > > The OP is saying that conservatives should come out against government control of these functions to be consistent. "Now, perhaps in your world, construction workers carefully consider which tool is correct for the job, but down here on this planet, they have a bias against using a jackhammer for _anything_- except breaking concrete, and probably a few others. The OP is saying that construction workers should come out against jackhammers breaking concrete to be consistent." …consistent with _what_? Some bizarre criterion that you just came up with? Do you think construction workers should be consistent and never use jackhammers, even when breaking concrete? If not, why do you think conservatives should be consistent and never use government, even when defending the nation? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/36 "2010-10-29T17:59:45Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > …consistent with _what_? Some bizarre criterion that you just came up with? Do you think construction workers should be consistent and never use jackhammers, even when breaking concrete? If not, why do you think conservatives should be consistent and never use government, even when defending the nation? Thing is we really do not know what Tea Party folks want beyond broad generalizations. > [@](#): > > Most people on the inside don’t see it that way, though. They think the only thing we need is “leadership,” by which they mean “throw the other guys out and put our guys in charge.” That was the theme of the Obama campaign, and it’s the theme of the GOP establishment today. > > But those of us in the Tea Party movement think we’re way past simple solutions like that. > > \ > > Government has gotten so massive, so regulation bound, so beholden to conflicting special interests, that it can no longer function much less solve the problems confronting us. Despite these problems, government seems unable or unwilling to enact necessary reforms. Why? Because large bureaucracies do not reform from within; neither do they reform top down. It’s against their self-interest to do so. > > \ > > But we can’t rely on government or our leaders to do it for us. We’ve got to force change on them from the grass roots and at the ballot box this November. > > Philip Howard’s Manifesto is the first step. > > SOURCE: [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-01/kt-mcfarland-and-the-tea-party-government-needs-to-start-from-scratch/](http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-01/kt-mcfarland-and-the-tea-party-government-needs-to-start-from-scratch/) Alright! A manifesto with some concrete steps! Now we’re getting somewhere! > [@](#): > > **1. Clean out the stables of government.** Democracy is not supposed to be a one-way valve, always piling new laws on top of old laws. In each area of government, appoint respected citizens and experts to make proposals to clean out unnecessary entitlements, mandates, and regulations. Going forward, laws and regulations should expire periodically under sunset laws. Government must make choices for the future, not stay mired in choices of the past. > > **2. Radically simplify law.** Laws must be understandable to be effective. Write laws to set public goals and general principles. Leave implementation to designated officials, with clear lines of accountability. The Constitution is 16 pages long. No statute should be over 50 pages. > > **3. Push responsibility down to local organizations.** Give back to Americans the freedom to make a difference—without unnecessary interference of centralized bureaucracy, especially in schools and other social services. Let public schools operate with the same freedoms as charter schools. Hold people accountable for results, not bureaucratic compliance. > > **4. Restore boundaries to lawsuits.** Fear of lawsuits has poisoned human interaction in most areas of society, especially health care and schools. Law should set outer boundaries of required conduct, not interfere in everyday disagreements. This requires judges and legislatures to define reasonable social norms as a matter of law. Create special health courts to provide a foundation of reliability and trust, essential to making health care safe and affordable. > > **5. Revive accountability for public employees.** Individual accountability is a critical component of a functioning democracy. Overhaul civil service and teacher tenure: Public servants should have more freedom to take responsibility, and they must be accountable for their choices. Make government transparent; sunlight is the best disinfectant. > > SOURCE: [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-26/philip-k-howard-manifesto-for-a-new-politics/](http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-26/philip-k-howard-manifesto-for-a-new-politics/) Ah…well…so much for a “manifesto”. Really just populist bullet points. All well and fine as far as it goes but it doesn’t go far at all. Tea Party folk are not anarchists but they clearly dislike government and while admitting its necessity want to keep it as small as possible. That is fine as a starting point but then, as the OP was on about, what parts are ok (or at least necessary)? Where do you start? Where do you stop? As is typical Tea Party folks are woefully short on details. All just vague hand waving at big government. I fully expect, if anyone actually did manage to implement that manifesto, a majority of Tea Party folk would squeal like a stuck pig as they find some piece of the pie they happen to like taken from them. Careful for what you wish for. You just might get it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/37 "2010-10-29T20:10:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > A bit early for the tea party but surely you remember: > > From [here](http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=463) after a very quick search. > Now, I admit “always” is a bit of hyperbole. Even the right doesn’t say that - the point of the OP is that if they were consistent, they should. The full quote lends context. Emphasis added: > [@](#): > > In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. > [@Ludovic](#): > > I must be hallucinating all of the case studies the teabaggers use in their shouts to stop the growth of federal government. All I hear is that the government can’t do anything right. Lacking any evidence that this is a widespread belief on “the right”, I think hallucinating is the more likely answer. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/38 "2010-10-29T20:39:00Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Allow me to illustrate the flaw in reductio-ad-absurdum arguments: > > \*An awful lot of left-wing rhetoric is about how horrible capitalism is. Supposedly we don’t want the market to regulate health care, private schools, private charity. And this is supposedly not because the left-wing hate health care, or schools, or charity, it’s because the market is too incompetent to do these things. > > Well, if the market is so incompetent at everything (That’s the claim, isn’t it?), then, should the market be trusted to run the things it runs now? Shoes? Everyone needs shoes. How about housing? People need a house. Food? Shouldn’t the government be responsible for distributing food on the theory that markets aren’t capable of allocating essential goods? Should Wal-Mart be replaced by government food stores? > > The ultimate conclusion seems to be that the market shouldn’t even be in the business of allocating goods and services at all. Too much power for a bunch of mouth-breathing capitalists.\* > > Please refute this. Then once you’ve done so, apply the same refutation to your own OP. I think the difference is that you don’t hear “capitalism never does anything right” from the left nearly as much as you hear “the government can’t do anything right” from the right. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/39 "2010-10-29T21:46:58Z")
This appears to be a common enough sentiment: > [@Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)](#): > > This idea that government has to do something is not a good idea. So I think the less we do, the better. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693/40 "2010-10-29T21:48:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Lacking any evidence that this is a widespread belief on “the right”, I think hallucinating is the more likely answer. This does not say whether the people in the survey lean right or left politically but: > [@](#): > > \*\*59% Still Believe Government Is the Problem > \*\* > In early October, as the meltdown of the financial industry gained momentum following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of U.S. voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” > > SOURCE: [59% Still Believe Government Is the Problem - Rasmussen Reports®](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2009/59_still_believe_government_is_the_problem) So a majority of voters in the US thought government was the problem (sans the distinction you noted) in 2009. I doubt that number is very different today. My gut suggests of that 59% a majority are leaning right. I have no evidence for it from that but were I a betting man that’s what I’d put my money on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-wing-reductio-ad-absurdum-should-the-government-be-trusted-to-run-the-government/558693.md?page=3)