Is this statement FORMALLY coherent?

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK. the Mises UK Council, Mises UK Faculty or Mises UK members. Membership of this forum is open to anyone world wide who is interested in civil discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Is this statement FORMALLY coherent?

Post by William » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:54 pm

“it's well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic,”

This was by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Not really:

"It's well past time we eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank, a shadow of cronyisms power on America"

"it's well past time we got read of the Patriot Act, a shadow of the growing power of the nanny state"

without an argument it's just sloganeering / preaching to the choir.

Is the statement wrong in the fact that The Electroal College was very much a feature of the philosophies of men like Adam Smith, David Hume, John Locke, and outgrowths of normative things like English Law and Magna Carta and therefore it is incoherent in that way. The answer to me appears to be yes. The Electoral college may not be as important as the Bill of Rights or anything, but the logic used was the same logic used by the foundations and pre foundations of this country which are basic liberal values.

If you are allowed to point that out, you may be able to use words like "racism" as smear words like "unpatriotic", "commie", or "witch". Poisioning the well with an inconsistent phrase. Is there a fromal name for any of this? Is this line still formally coherent? Are you TECHNICALLY allowed to make the statement (barring crazy marxist / postmodern logic) "the electoral college = relic of slavery"? even in an off the cuff remark, as it is part of a system that has nothing at all (or perhaps ultimately undermining of) to do with slavery other than it (and every other piece of history) existed at a time when slavery was around in the west.

I this would be close to associating, I don't know. Bach, Charlemagne, Martin Luther, and Thomas Aquinas with Nazi Germany. I think you have to really buy a crazy cult framework (like Nazis, pomo's, and commies) to seriously think you can make that claim and it have much merit.

Neither Ghengis Khan or DAESH have much to do with the "shadow of racism". NAZIS had little to do with the Federal Reserve Bank. To hook these claims up is asinine no matter how much you hate the groups involved. The Electoral College has not a thing to do with slavery other than historical accident.

It's almost as if the train of thought is this:

(Racism exists in the world = I live in the west where racism exists = I blame the world, which is my world for the problems I dont like = racism) = all things I don't like in space in time must be racist + (DAESH is evil = my world is the world I blame and all that can exist = DAESH must be "western" somehow = DAESH is part of this world which is the west) = therefore DAESH is racist just like republicans, Ghengis Khan, "the corporations", capitalism, and the electoral college...TRUE stuff = (insert Hegel here)
I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'.
F.A Hayek

Post Reply