Reductio ad absurdum is defined in my “Handbook to Literature” as “a `reducing to absurdity’ to show the falsity of an argument . . . a method of persuasion . . . which carries to its extreme, but logical, conclusion some general statement.”
It is a particularly good, logical device to employ when evaluating statements made by campaigning politicians. Many of their assertions border on absurdum just as they are spoken and thus anyone with common sense does not have to put a lot of effort into the reductio process.
Take the following rhetorical question by a monetarily well-endowed, but logically challenged, Senate candidate here in Minnesota “How can it be that people are making a profit off of other people’s illness?”
Well, I don’t know. It seems to me that someone makes a profit from meeting virtually any human need.
I used to farm, producing food and fiber to feed and clothe people. I always tried to make a profit, even if I did not always succeed, and I did not think I was doing anything wrong.
Is health care fundamentally more important than food?
When I needed health care as a child, my mother would take me to Dr. P. At age 11, my head got cut when a milk can fell on it (don’t even ask!). Dr. P. charged my mom $12.50 to put in three stitches. As we left his office, we noticed his new 1961 Cadillac glistening at the curb.
Was this kindly old gent, who lived in one of the nicest houses in town, profiting off my pain and suffering? Say it ain’t so Joe! Old Doc P. was not alone in enjoying an above-average income as a physician. Data show that the ratio of doctors’ average incomes to the general population’s average income is higher in the United States than in any other wealthy, industrialized country. Gasp, gasp: Can M.D.s be profiting from our illness?
Whenever I am in a hospital or clinic, it seems that all the equipment, furnishings and fixtures, from thermometers to EKG machines to nurses’ scrubs to throat swabs, are made by some for-profit company.
Thousands of Minnesotans work for firms making health care supplies, including medical device companies such as Medtronic, St. Jude, and a host of smaller firms. Are these friends and neighbors blood-sucking parasites who are profiting from the illness of others?
Think about what health care would be like if no one were allowed to profit from the illness of others. If producing any health care product or service was restricted to government or to nonprofit organizations, would we have the array of drugs, instruments, devices or tests that we do?
Would we have the same cadre of skilled health professionals if their incomes were capped? I think not! But if allowing profit-making concerns is acceptable for 90 percent or so of the health care supply chain, why is it unacceptable at the level of the hospital or clinic?
On another note, the presidential candidate of the other party has repeatedly said something like the following: “The (federal budget) surplus doesn’t belong to the government, it belongs to the taxpayers. Let’s give it back to them!” That has a nice ring.
But if it is true that budget surpluses are the result of overtaxing and should be returned to taxpayers, then it also should be true that budget deficits are the result of undertaxation and taxpayers should be billed for the balance. Perhaps the good governor dozed off in his freshman logic class at Yale, or he would recognize this.
During the four years that the candidate’s father was president, the national debt increased by nearly $1.5 trillion. I don’t remember ever hearing any Republican officeholder complain that taxpayers were under-taxed or demand that they be billed for any balance due. Why not?
The budget surpluses we have right now at both state and federal levels are largely the result of a booming economy. They are not the products of any substantial change in tax rates in recent years. If the economy slows, income growth will slacken, consumer sales will slacken and surpluses will fall.
Because the economy has grown so well for a number of years, a garden-variety recession will not return us to budget deficits as long as there are no major tax cuts or spending increases. But if both are implemented and the economy slows, as it will sooner or later, we could easily find ourselves back with a growing, rather than a shrinking, national debt. Is this something a prudent citizenry really wants?
An election year is a fine occasion to air differing views in the public square. Voters should pay attention to the positions different candidates advocate, but they should take care to avoid being swayed by glib but illogical rhetoric.
© 2000 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.