There are certain arguments that have a superficial validity, and yet prove nothing. These usually take a familiar form, that which Bastiat described as "what is seen and what is hidden". He used it specifically to describe economic situations in which the benefit of a specific action is visible, while the costs are not, but the argument itself has a much wider applicability, as I have shown over and over ("Who Is Safer?", "Worker Safety", "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!", "Impractical Pragmatists", "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again".) Just as von Mises argued that economics is but a specific subset of the science of human choice ("Bad Economics Part 16"), Bastiat's observation can apply far beyond simply monetary matters to all manner of decisions. And, in most cases, the arguments I am about to describe have little to do with what is traditionally considered economic questions.(For some earlier examinations of similar questions, read "Green Kills", "The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data" and "The Problem of the Small Picture".)

One example, one we hear all too often not only from those pressing an agenda, but even from supposedly neutral observers, such as the news media, is the argument, whenever a particular shooting catches the public attention, that enforcement of this or that gun control ordinance, or perhaps the total ban of private firearm ownership, would have prevented the crime.

On the surface such arguments are obviously convincing, and are valid, if taken only at face value. Were specific laws passed or enforced, or were gun ownership banned, then it is certain that many specific crimes would have been prevented. What the argument fails to take into account are the many unseen changes that those alterations could make. Passing new laws, or aggressively enforcing current ones, and especially completely banning private gun ownership may, and certainly would, prevent some instances of handgun related violence, but they would also have other far-reaching influence. The problem being that usually those consequences are much harder to see, and often are dismissed as speculative, while the benefits, even if equally hypothetical, are seen as concrete and certain.

Let us take a simple fictional case, but one rooted in real events. Suppose in the aftermath of Columbine, someone were to argue that the whole tragedy could have been prevented. In his argument, he would have suggested, perhaps, that more stringent restrictions on sales might have kept the guns out of the hands of the teens, or, barring that, certainly the elimination of all privately held handguns would have stopped it completely.

Likely he would have found a receptive audience for such arguments. And not only among those prone to supporting gun control. Even among those more uncertain of their position, the argument seems a sound one. Who could deny that, without guns, there would have been no shooting? Given their circumstances, and their lack of criminal connections, it seems certain that legal prohibition of ownership would have thwarted the two. They may still have tried to stab, bludgeon, maybe even bomb, their classmates, but those seem unlikely to have achieved the body counts they did with firearms.

The problem with this argument is that it relies on a myopic vision. Unfortunately, humans are also prone to adopt just such a perspective¹. When confronted with a problem, the first step humans generally take, in fact a step many problem solving methods suggest, is to ignore all unessential details, to focus entirely on the problem itself, seeing only relevant details and excluding all else. In dealing with simple problems, this is usually a good idea, as they can be solved without reference to external details. Even for more complicated issues, it is a good first step, but only so long as you remember it is a first step, and afterward you need to raise your eyes from the immediate issue and look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately, in real life, that is rarely the case. Seeing, in our example, a violent shooting, and seeing a proposed solution, a gun ban, that appears to solve it, most will happily conclude the question is resolved, and the answer at hand is a good one.

But that only works if the problem and answer are of very limited scope. It is valid to reduce your vision to immediate moment only if the solution does not reach beyond that moment. For instance, if I touch a hot burner, I can resolve it by withdrawing my hand. The problem and answer are stuck in the moment, have no greater reach, and so can be dealt with as discrete, isolated events. This is hardly the case with political and economic questions, where the solutions almost always touch upon the economy as a whole, or even the entire social system, and so cannot properly be viewed in isolation.

Let us demonstrate by looking at our current example. Columbine could clearly have been stopped by banning private handgun ownership², few would debate that, but there remains another question. What else would the ban have accomplished³? Until we look at both sides of the equation ("Absolute Values"), there is no way to say whether the ban would be worthwhile. It might successfully prevent Columbine, or events akin to Columbine, but if the cost is high enough, that benefit may not be worthwhile.

And what costs might there be to a total ban⁴?

The first consequence is obvious, though, as with most unseen costs, hard to state with precision. You see, gun ownership prevents crime, but the amount of crime is hard to determine. ("Why the Numbers Don't Matter") We can know the number of crimes which were stopped by the discharge of a weapon, or at least the subset of those in which the police became involved, but there are a host of others which we cannot know. There are crimes where a weapon was brandished, but then not mentioned to the police, or where the entire incident went unreported. In addition, there are those incidents where a homeowner heard a noise, and, emboldened by the gun, patrolled his house preventing a crime, but never knowing he did so. And, beyond that, there are also those discouraged from even committing a crime by the fear of an armed citizen. And the list could be expanded. I doubt we could even come up with a reasonable approximation of the number of crimes prevented. However, that does not mean we should ignore this consequence of a ban, we still must consider it as a cost, but with the understanding that the total cost is, in this case, very speculative. Or, to be precise, the cost is definite, it is only the magnitude of that cost which we cannot know with any certainty.

And that is part of the problem with such arguments, and part of the reason we tend to avoid looking beyond the immediate problem and solution. The cost beyond the immediate moment tend to be quite speculative. Either in the sense that it is hard to establish whether or not they would occur at all⁵, or, if the existence of the cost is certain,in the sense of trying to establish  the scope of the problem which would result. And that speculative aspect troubles us, especially when we are trying to come to an informed decision. When making such choices, we tend to quickly dismiss anything which cannot be established with precision⁶. And, as a result, we tend to overlook almost everything except the events of the immediate place and time. It means we overlook many very real costs, and even some benefits, but it is so strongly ingrained in our way of doing things that we cannot help ourselves.

And as we look at the potential costs, it is easy to see how such costs can be ignored, with only the purported benefits considered. For example, consider the fact that gun control laws are predicated upon the idea that individuals are not entirely competent to run their own affairs, and must, in some circumstances, be told what to do by the state in order to save them from themselves. It is, no doubt, a relatively accurate statement of the premise underlying gun control, but what are the outcomes of adopting it? I have argued elsewhere that adopting such premises, even with a limited scope, grants credence to the underlying logic, and, as a result, tends to run to its logical conclusion, in this case an all encompassing government. However, is such a belief clear and certain enough to serve as an estimate of cost? And if so, what is the cost of an omnipotent government? Even if everyone grants my initial premise, there is more than enough dispute over the consequences of big government that trying to establish the costs of this aspect would be impossible.

And then there are the costs which go beyond the strictly economic. Even my more speculative aspects in the previous paragraph could, provided we agreed upon their impact, be given monetary values. We might differ as to the reach of such changes, but we could eventually put a price tag upon them. But what about consequences that are not financial? What about the way that the logic underlying gun control, as I described above, also serves to justify the erosion of individual freedoms? What about the way that allowing government paternalism leads over time to greater intrusions upon individual autonomy? Clearly that point is also contentious, but even if we agree upon it, how do we measure the costs? What is the value of lost freedom? If we say that passing such a law will contribute to the slow loss of liberty, is that worth more or less than the crime prevention? What if we argue that the disarming of the populace may provide a temptation to would be tyrants? Is the risk there more costly than the Columbine killings?

Nor does it become any clearer when we move on to other topics.

Another version popular recently was the medical sob story. Prior to the passage of ObamaCare we were inundated with stories of those who had been unable to obtain medical treatment, who had been forced to chose between care and food, who could not buy needed medicines or pay for needed treatment, and so on. And again, the argument ended by arguing that government payment of medical costs would have solved everything. Of course this is an absurd position, as even those who endorse nationalized health care admit there are costs, yet inevitably these arguments managed to overlook such inconvenient facts, treating government funding as if it were completely unobjectionable, no more controversial than a bill funding new school construction or road repairs⁷.

I could go on, but there is one point I feel must be made first. While each of these arguments is wholly invalid, precisely because it manages to ignore a host of potential costs, we should be careful not to fall into a related error. Simply because a given argument is faulty, that does not mean that it proves the opposite side's argument true. For example, simply because the Columbine argument for banning handguns is absurdly simplistic, it does not provide any evidence in favor of the right to bear arms. It is a common mistake, especially in these days of overly tendentious internet debate, scoring points through childish "gotchas", and the belief that one wins by posting the most pithy quip, but an invalid argument is just that, invalid⁸. And invalid for every purpose. Yes, it is invalid for the purpose intended, that is it cannot prove the original argument, but it also cannot prove the opposite either. Invalid arguments are simply worthless. And, as a result, we should not crow over disproving an opposing thesis. While it may be satisfying to carry the day, to hold the field of battle, in the end, the demolition of the opposing argument leaves us where we started, with nothing resolved. And that is little enough reason to rejoice.

The reason I have mentioned this is that I have come across a rather prominent argument in the conservative realm which seems to rely upon a similar error. And that is, in a way, unusual⁹. Not because conservatives are opposed to overly simplistic arguments, there are many times I have found theories supported by nothing more than a loose reference to the Constitution, or a rather imprecise reading of the Federalist Papers. But that is why this one is interesting. Conservatives, when they simplify, tend to simplify theories. Excepting a few groups⁹ , conservatives tend to base their arguments on theoretical foundations. If they simplify, they simplify theory. The pragmatic arguments, that is the sort of "If A Then B" solutions, ignoring all other consequences, tend to come more often from the left and center. There are a few cases of such foolishness on the right, mostly in terms of simplistic economic analysis¹⁰, but in general conservatives have a tendency to provide arguments based on theory rather than utilitarian approaches.

However, my recent writing has brought to my attention that there is one area where conservatives have started to adopt a very pragmatic approach. In a few cases they have tried to advance some theoretical and principle-based arguments, but in general they have been throwing out simple, pragmatic arguments, that resemble nothing so much as the gun control argument with which I started.

And that area is immigration¹¹.

Now, immigration is a heated topic for many reasons. There are worries about the aliens who immigrate failing to assimilate. ("Assimilation At Home and Abroad ",  "Immigration and Assimilation") There are concerns about terrorism. There are worries about illegal aliens, for many reasons. For importing crime to the US, for creating a lack of respect for the law, for draining our welfare system and overloading our hospitals, even for lowering overall wages. Not that the last is limited to illegals, the decline in wages is a topic brought up with regard to immigration repeatedly¹². Nor is it the final worry. We also have concerns over disease, over drug smuggling, and so on. And we must not forget, though often left unstated, we also have concerns over changes to the political landscape, one party or another gaining ascendancy through the manipulation of immigration patterns¹³.

And all this concern over immigration, especially following September 11, as well as the political disputes over illegal immigration subsequent to that event, has led to many conservatives falling into the same error as the gun control advocates, looking at a problem as a simple, isolated issue, and suggesting solutions without looking beyond the immediate event, not thinking of the big picture. Specifically, the most recent calls have been for the complete closing of the border, the rejection of all immigrants at least for several years, in general the closure of the US to outside individuals.

And the reasoning for this argument resembles nothing so much as the gun control argument. Whatever problem of immigration is the focus, terrorists to drugs to crime, the point is made that closing the borders would prevent it. And, as with gun control, the argument sounds valid, and likely would work. However, it also overlooks the other consequences, as well as the way it will effect society as a whole. As with the earlier examples, mostly liberal, this argument rests entirely upon overlooking anything beyond the immediate results.

And again, as with all those earlier arguments, I need to make one final point. Just because the argument fails to examine the full question, that doe snot mean the opposite side is right. The people arguing for sealed borders may be right or may be wrong, that remains to be seen, my point is that this specific argument is worthless, but that does not make their position invalid. It may or may not be a good idea to seal the border, other arguments will decide that, all I can say with certainty is that the argument will not be decided by either side of this specific debate.

Which is my point overall. Looking at problems in a very myopic way, staring at only the immediate issue without thought of anything beyond the here and now, is likely to lead to arguments which sound superficially valid but which overlook any number of consequences. As a result, these arguments can easily lead us into very bad decisions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. This always reminds me of an old anecdote I heard about a college exam. (I first heard it from my father concerning a classmate of his. Since then I have heard it about others, making me think my father may have given me my first exposure to an urban legend way back in my early youth.) The story states that a student, not notoriously diligent in his studies, was asked to list to causes of the French and Indian Wars, and, having no idea what the professor wanted, replies "the French and the Indians." That answer seems to me to embody everything beneficial and harmful about our ability to focus. We can use it to exclude a welter of unnecessary information, but we can also use it to shut out details we should really consider, but which we initially consider too distant in time or space to include.
 
2. As I mentioned in "Arrogance and Gun Control", this is not entirely accurate. Even were guns completely banned, there would exist old guns, as well as guns smuggle din from elsewhere, which mean the shooting could still have happened. In addition, if ammunition is available, it is relatively simple to manufacture homemade "zip guns", which, while not terribly safe or accurate, can still kill. (And skilled metal workers can make even better quality weapons.) Even with guns and ammunition banned, there remains the possibility of repeating the process by which guns were first developed and build something like a musket or arquebus. (Or, as many people currently hand load shells, if old brass still remains, or new brass can be made, quality ammunition may survive the ban as well.) So, even with a total ban, guns could still be found, just as the ban on drugs has not made drugs vanish. ("Drug Legalization", "Unintended Consequences II")

3. As I am talking about gun bans, I suppose I should explain my own position. Strictly speaking, it is irrelevant, as I am not using this post to argue for either side of the debate, simply to point out where arguments on both sides go awry, but as some may worry my own bias will color my arguments, I feel I should reveal my beliefs. And so, in the interest of disclosure, I will state I am fully opposed to banning any weapons, even military equipment. As I argue in "A Simple Proposal", "A Right Is A Right", "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government" and "My Political Philosophy", if the police and military can own a weapon, so should citizens. For more detailed arguments on the same topic see "Nuclear Disarmament and Gun Control ", "Arrogance and Gun Control", "The Weakest Gun Control Argument", "The Weakest Gun Control Argument", "The Citizen Dichotomy" and "Three Ideas That Never Work".

4. I will never be able to mention every possible cost, or every possible benefit. Given the size and complexity of the economy, such an understanding of all the interconnected events is impossible. ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management, "Planning For Imperfection ", "Greed Versus Evil", "Bad Economics Part 15", "Bad Economics Part 16", "Overly Simplified Economics and Confused Interpretations", "The Most Misleading Word", "Luxury and Necessity") For example, while writing some of this essay I realized I had completely overlooked those who supplement their income by hunting for food. And I then also thought of those who use guns to protect their farm animals or family members from wild animals. And as I thought and thought, more and more variations came to mind. All of which helps explain why I am so ardently opposed to government intervention into the economy. ("The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "The Virtue of Humility", "Bad Economics Part 9", "The Fascination with Change", "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee ", "Individual and Aggregate ", "Volunteer Fireman, Barn Raisings and Government ") If we cannot know every consequence, then we are just as likely to harm as help. ("When Help Hurts") And, since government intervention is known to be costly, why bear that expense when there is no clear benefit? But that is another post. For now, all I wanted to point out was that I am certain to miss many consequences to a total ban, but I am aware of that fact. So, please, no comments complaining about overlooking this or that cost.

5. One example would be the proposals to cap profits for pharmaceutical companies, or just to place price caps on domestic sales. Many have pointed out that such measures could result in pharmaceutical research stopping, or even pharmaceutical firms closing their doors. Both are certainly likely, and, in the long run, if profits are reduced sufficiently, firms will eventually have to close. But whether any given firm will close, and when, is impossible to establish.

6. Granted, many people are happy to work with impressionistic data, but in this case we are starting with those listening to reasoned arguments, so we are presuming a group of people inclined to make cost-benefit assessments (even if they do so in a faulty manner). Thus it is unlikely we would find in our hypothetical group any inclined to buy into impressionistic arguments.

7. I won't bother going into it here, as I have discussed this at such great length, but there are countless costs associated with government funding of medical care. My arguments can be found in the posts  "Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "The Insurance Sham", "Government Efficiency", "High Cost of Medical Care", "Medical Reform, An Overview", "My Health Care Plan", "True Insurance Reform", "A Different Look at "Health Care Reform"", "Of Wheat and Doctors" and "You Gotta Have Faith", among others.

8. To provide a very simple example, were Joe to propose a mathematical system based upon the premise that 2+2=5, it would not be hard to prove it invalid by showing 2+2 is not 5. However, while that shows Joe's theory is not correct, it does not prove that your theory, based upon the premise 2+2=3, is valid either. Proof for your own theory comes from your arguments in its support, not in dismissing the contradictory arguments of the opposition.

9. The paleo-cons seem most prone to such pragmatism, though the closer they drift to the center the more moderate conservatives follow this approach as well.

10. It is not surprising economics would be the one area where conservatives follow the pragmatic line, as the liberal approach has been so strong an influence on all economic thought. Even supposedly conservative monetary theories, for example, still have more in common with Keynes than with pre-Keynesian thought. Similarly, as any free market supporter can attest, what was considered conservative in the early 1900s would be called insanely reactionary today. In other words, the past's liberalism has taken over and become mdoerate, or even conservative by today's standards. And, given left leaning economics' tendency toward pragmatic solutions, it is not surprising the conservatives have followed suit in this one area. (See "A Passing Thought", "The Political Spectrum", "The Best Historical Example" and "Rethinking the Scopes Trial".)

11. It is not relevant here, but my personal belief is that open immigration is the best policy under ideal circumstances. I have mentioned this briefly in "What we need" [though my views have evolved since then], "What I Want in a President", "Stupid Nationalism Is Not Dead", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies", "Prelude to a Full Argument", "Keeping the Drug Cartels Alive", "A True Conservative Platform" and "Thoughts On Arizona's Immigration Law", but have not written on it at length yet. This whole topic needs much more discussion than I can give here, but let me say briefly that open immigration is necessary to enjoy the economic benefits of free mobility of labor. More important, free immigration is necessary both to grant all men the rights they should possess under our laws, and to allow citizens to exercise their rights as well. Not to mention that limited immigration is an invitation to political infighting, manipulation and, as a consequence, resentment. ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government",  "Transparency, Corruption and Reform") Finally, the supposed benefits of closed or restricted immigration are much less consequential than assumed, but that point alone will meet with enough disagreement I would want an entire post to debate it. Of course, none of this applies so long as we have an aggressive welfare system, but should we ever correct our governmental issues, I would support open immigration. (I have planned to write a comprehensive post on this topic for some time, I simply have not yet done so. But I hope to do so very soon.)

12. I have argued before that this is a bit of a red herring, as gains enjoyed as consumers far outweigh the smaller losses we suffer due tot he loss of elevated wages due to relative underpopulation. (See "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism" and "Capital Investment".)

13. This is hardly a new concern. The 1914 act was premised partly on this concern, as were several subsequent adjustments to the national quotas. It seems whoever holds control over immigration cannot resist the temptation to use the completely arbitrary quotas and guidelines to work the system to their advantage. As I argued in "The Inevitable Corruption of Protectionism", as system with standards which are completely arbitrary creates temptations that are impossible to resist. As ther eis no "rational" way to determine how many immigrants to admit, or from what countries, the numbers will always be arbitrary, making it impossible to tell if quotas are disinterested, or manipulated for political advantage. Though the temptation to do the latter is likely too strong for many to resist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

When I was first writing this, I intended to write a section on the more extreme "tough on crime" positions. However, when I began to work on that part, it brought home to me how difficult this topic can be. The problem was trying to draw a line between the tough on crime positions which are legitimate, such as those I had proposed in  "Compassionate Execution", "The Death Penalty", "A Rational Approach to Punishment", "The Ends Justify the Means?", "Fair or Functional?", "Crime, Insanity, Incompetence, and IQ", "Sunday Morning Talking Heads", "Revisiting the Death Penalty" and "Reconsidering My Earlier Justifications of the Death Penalty", and those positions which consist of imposing burdens upon all those arrested without thought of consequences. At the extremes it was easy enough, but in the middle, there was quite a bit of room for argument. As a result, I left the topic out, for fear of spending more time trying to clear up confusion than making my point. Still, it did serve to remind me that many times there is a fine line between well thought out argument and knee jerk reaction, and that sometimes it is very difficult to tell the two apart.