Equating this:

(1) all men are humans,
(2) Women are humans,
(3) Therefore all women are men. Which is clearly false.

With this:

(1) all government provided goods and services are socialist.
(2) The FBI (or the military) is a government provided good.
(3) Therefore the FBI (or the military) must be a socialist program.

is an obvious misunderstanding of the fallacy Publius claims to be applying. The logic of the second group is completely sound. If you disagree with either 1 or 2, then you can claim not to accept 3 as a logical conclusion, but that’s not what Publius said. He said the second argument was an example of the “fallacy of the undistributed middle”, which it most certainly is not. His first example argument goes like this:

(1) All A’s are C
(2) All B’s are C
(3) Therefore all A’s are B’s

The second argument follows this pattern:

(1) All A’s are C
(2) B is an A
(3) Therefore, B is C

See how it works? Logically sound. The only way you can refute #3 is to reject #1 or #2, but that’s NOT the tack Publius took. Therefore I reject your unsubstantiated conclusion that Publius’ “command of logical debate” is superior to David’s.

All the polls are showing that an overwhelming majority of americans are against this new healthplan. David you act as though you know better than the majority of americans. Do you?

Let’s start with the question of what does and does not constitute socialism and whether anything that is “socialist” can be a good thing in America. Remember, that’s where Chris started the discussion this past Tuesday. His point, which I agree with, is that people who cry “socialism” as an attack on the Obama health care plan have no problem with government provision of some services in some circumstances, particularly when it comes to police and fire services.

My challenge was: “Perhaps a Severin defender would like to use this space to explain exactly why complete governmental over our foreign and domestic defense services are perfectly fine and not at all “socialist” whereas the slightest government intervention in health care is socialist, dangerous, and stupid? All comments responding to this post will be approved as soon as possible.”

You responded (which is why I assumed you were a Severin defender — i.e., “fan,”) by saying “What you people fail to realize is that neither the police nor the firefighters are controlled by the federal government. They are in fact controlled by local governments, thereby, requiring decentralized planning and decentralized execution because each local community have different needs. Centralized planning of local police and firefighters would be disastrous. In addition, the absence of local police and firefighters is an inherent risk to the overall safety of the entire population. That’s why communities invest to have them instituted. This has nothing to do with socialism, it’s just basic common sense. This question is a ‘red-herring’. And if you don’t understand why perhaps you should revisit the definition of “socialism” yourselves.”

If I may summarize, your points are:
1) Government provision of services is OK if it’s done at the local level, but not at the national level.
2) Government provision of services is OK if it’s done to protect public safety.

To which I respond:
1) There is nothing theoretically or philosophically different between local and national government control of the means of production, and that’s certainly not what determines whether a particular program is “socialist” or not.
2) There is nothing theoretically or philosophically different between government control of public safety and government involvement in public or individual health care.

Now I’m still not sure whether your underlying point is that (a) socialism at the federal level is bad but socialism at the local level is OK, or (b) socialism in health care is bad but socialism in public safety is OK, or (c) socialism is always bad but the term socialism simply never applies to public safety but only to other kinds of services including health care.

Do any of (a), (b), or (c) correctly characterize your position? If so, I believe I have presented ample arguments in opposition to whatever your position is but would be happy to clarify again if you tell me which position(s) you are taking. If you do not agree with (a), (b), or (c), then allow me to put the question to you once more and ask for a simple and direct answer: Why are opponents of the Obama health care reform so worried about government involvement in health care but not worried about government involvement in police and fire services?

Another over-generalization in your part is that you’re assuming that I’m a Jay Severin fan. You must really have tunnel vision. I came across this blog to, in fact research, some inconsistencies in Jay’s comments. A libertarian always questions the motives of others. However, you’re far worse than the person you’re claiming to discredit.

How can I be sure that they’re mutually exclusive? Are you kidding me? I’ll dissect your comments. What is mutual exclusivity? Let me explain it to you like you’re a five year old. A coin has two sides … A head and a tail. Right? So if we flip it lands either heads up or tails up. It could never be both. Right? Now that we’ve established that let us move on to our topic.

You explicitly said that the US Constitution is a response to tyrannical Monarchy. Is this not correct? So, therefore, the US Constitution and Tyrannical Monarchies are mutually exclusive, “NOT” socialism. You’ve already agreed with me that socialism “DID NOT” exist during the framing of the US Constitution. So how is one thing mutually exclusive with another thing when the latter hasn’t been created yet (i.e. socialism). Explain that to me, Sherlock. So to answer you’re question. How can I be sure that they are mutually exclusive? They’re not! One thing has nothing to do with the other. Like I said before. This question is a red-herring. Unless, the Founding Father, had some notion of “socialism” during the framing of the Constitution which is impossible because it hasn’t yet existed. But if you really believe this, God help you because no one can.

You keep insisting that “socialism” has some influence on or correlation with the US Constitution because of the concept of a “shared good”. We both agree, it doesn’t, you said it yourself … socialism hasn’t existed yet. You’re making a post hoc logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Having an engineering and math background helps to understand this.

On another note, the fallacy that Jay uses has nothing to do with Non-sequitur he is using Post hoc ergo propter hoc or a coincidental correlation. When he says “so far all the terrorists, have been muslims” we know that’s not true. It is, in fact, true that the brunt of the current terrorism we are facing today is caused by radical muslims. However, this is “NOT” to say that other forms of terrorism from other groups is not existent.

For you to relate this statement to my comment about Non-sequitur is a red-herring, another logical fallacy. God, I hope you understand that one.

I’m really going to comment on a few more points because, I may attract unnecessary attention to this blog. How can you draw a parallel between the public vs private health option and public and private universities. Both public and private universities are non-profit and they operate under the same laws and guidelines. The public vs private health option debate is a different beast altogether. A private health insurance is a for-profit institution, the public option isn’t. You want to regulate private health insurance but who would regulate the public option? The government, the same entity that created it? Do you want me to go over the VA hospital incident again?

How did you prove me wrong … you said on more than one occasion that … “I honestly don’t know what you’re getting at.” … So if you don’t understand my major points, then how can you say that you were able to prove me wrong. Unless you count that as victory, in which case, that’s just pathetic.

The problem with your debating skills is that it’s filled with tangents and analogies. You’re employing Proof of verbosity. A rhetorical technique that inundates the audience with volumes of irrelevant material that you make the argument sound plausible. Stick to the topic and stop with the red-herrings.

So again, I ask you humbly to prove me wrong. I’m still waiting for it.

P.S.

I hope you’re not a lawyer, because if you are, God help us.