January 20, 2020
I've begun to notice a trend more and more, not with any particular person or even a group or people, but as a general trend. It seems that we've become slowly more dependent on a few authorities to not just inform us, but interpret for us. The obvious culprits are of course media outlets, columnists, and the few phenomena like Qanon. The ones that concern me more, however, are the ones that actually have authority: Politicians, Justices, Executives, and the trends in their behavior. The number of appeal to authority fallacies that point to all these sources is remarkable alone, but more amazing yet is the fact that these authorities are appealed to when simple reasoning would suffice.
Perhaps the best example of this intellectual laziness is Constitutional arguments. It will be assumed, for instance, that a law must be Constitutional because it has existed for a significant amount of time without being struck down by the Supreme Court. What kind of argument is that? The Constitution is a short English document, and the relevant section of law is also generally short, or at least easily understood. Every literate individual capable of basic logical deduction is qualified to determine if a legislative action is Constitutional or not, and yet this thought is outsourced to Supreme Court Justices.
Allow me to illustrate my point with a favorite example:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The National Firearms Act (1934) added a $200 tax to automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and certain other arms.
The Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986) entirely outlawed the manufacture of automatic firearms after the date of it's passing, and outlawed the ownership of any automatic firearm not manufactured before it.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) banned certain semiautomatic firearms the law arbitrarily regarded to be "assault weapons" ("assault weapon" is not a legitimate classification).
No further argument is required. These pieces of legislation, especially the egregious "Assault Weapons" Ban, are clearly in violation of the second amendment. There is no argument that can be made, by a well-educated lawyer in a black robe or by anyone else, that can make any of these laws not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Similar arguments extend to the Fourth Amendment with respect to Federal surveillance programs, and countless more extend to the enumerated powers with respect to Federal law.
Finally, I have to say that I'm remarkably confused about where the confidence about these arguments comes from. After all, it's not even the arguer's position in the first place! Of course, adopted positions are just as valid as original ones, but no position is valid if it doesn't rest on well-reasoned justification. In the case of adopted ideas, the original source may have justified their stance, but often the adopters do not bother with such things and adopt the assertion made at face value. This is what I mean to criticize. Our system of government clearly assumes that the People will make their own minds up, otherwise it would not have trusted the People enough to be the center of the system.