Pictured: the logic of liberalism.
The logic of liberalism is somewhat of a misnomer. Today, we are going to prove that, for better or worse, the Left is logically devoid using one of its most cherished concepts: equality.
The Logic of Liberalism: Definitions
First, lets see what the terms “equality,” “fair,” and “unfair” mean.
From Dictionary.com:
e·qual·i·ty
[ih-kwol-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural e·qual·i·ties.
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity,degree, value, rank, or ability.
2. uniform character, as of motion or surface.
3. Mathematics . a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.
Synonyms
1. equivalency, parity, correspondence, sameness; justice, fairness, impartiality.
From World English Dictionary:
fair 1 (fɛə)
— adj
1. free from discrimination, dishonesty, etc; just; impartial
2. in conformity with rules or standards; legitimate: a fair fight
[Edited for space]
For “unfair”, we will look at both Dictionary.com’s definition, as well as World English Dictionary’s definition to prove that there is consistency between the two sources:
Dictionary.com:
un·fair
[uhn-fair] Show IPA
adjective
1. not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice,honesty, or ethics: an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2. disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share. [Ed. Note: Ironic example, is it not?]
World English Dictionary:
unfair (ʌnˈfɛə)
— adj
1. characterized by inequality or injustice
2. dishonest or unethical
The Logic of Liberalism: Assumptions
Okay, now that we have the definitions, let’s set up the assumptions.
So, what are some common issues that liberals support?
Well, “equal rights” is a big one, but since gay marriage seems to be more of a liberal concern rather than conservative one, lets use gay marriage.
We will use the classic “If…, then…” structure, which looks like this:
A equals B.
B equals C.
If A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, then A is equal to C.
Very simple.
Most liberals would agree on the following logical statement:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in equality.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness and equality.
Again, very simple. This also gives us a new assumption, and that is the converse of the above statement:
“If you believe in fairness and equality, then you are a liberal.”
Lets plug in our terms and assumptions into the equation for gay marriage:
If you believe in gay marriage, then you are a liberal.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness and equality.
Therefore, if you believe in gay marriage, then you believe in fairness and equality.
It is a perfectly logical argument, whether you agree with its sentiments or not.
The Logic of Liberalism: Structure and Mechanics
Here is where the house of cards falls. Let’s look at another issue in which the Left feels passionately: the tax code.
Liberals heavily favor a more “fair” tax code, in which the rich pay a higher tax rate than they currently do, despite the fact that the rich already pay the largest share of the tax burden.
So lets look at the same logical statement, but instead of gay marriage, we substitute the rich paying a greater amount in taxes:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness and equality.
If you are a liberal, then you believe that the rich should pay greater taxes.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness and equality, and that the rich should pay greater taxes.
Wait a minute! Based on the definitions above, that isn’t possible—something cannot be the same and different at the same time!
Exactly—that’s called an untrue statement.
Lets look at it in a slightly different light. Lets say a more fair tax structure instead of a greater tax hike on the rich:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness and equality.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in a fair tax system.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in a fair tax system, fairness, and equality.
Aha! Gotcha you tricky conservative bastard! You thought you had us, didn’t you!
Well, remember when we introduced the definitions in the beginning, as well as the “If… then…” statement? The one that goes “If A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C”? Since we have the definitions, lets assign a value to each of these terms.
Since, according to the definitions of both “equality” and “fairness,” both of these words hold the same meaning, we can give them the same numerical value.
Lets say that value is F for fairness—and because a combination of E and F would still sound phonetically the same as F.
When we plug in the value into the logical statement above, we get the following:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in F and F.
Well, that’s stupid. No one says, “I believe in hats and I believe in hats.” They say, “I believe in hats.”
So lets change the first part to be more natural:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in F (which, again, is fairness).
So far, so good. Lets look at the second part of the argument:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in a fair tax system.
Hey! There’s that word “fair” again! Lets just replace it with the numerical value like we did in the last statement!
If you are a liberal, then you believe in an F tax system.
Awesome! That takes three letters out of the sentence! Hooray!
So lets look at the whole thing now, with the numerical values inserted:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in F.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in an F tax system.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in F and an F tax system!
Awesome! But that’s a little awkward…lets backtrack a bit and reinsert the words. We have two options:
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in a fair tax system.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in fairness and a fair tax system.
…and…
If you are a liberal, then you believe in equality.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in an equal tax system.
If you are a liberal, then you believe in equality and an equal tax system.
Wait a minute…that first one sounded fine, but that second one isn’t what we want at all! That would just be a flat tax!
Oh, you don’t want that? You want the opposite of an equal tax system? One that has the rich paying more? We have a solution for that, too. It is called the contrapositive, and it gives us these two logical statements:
If you are not a liberal, then you do not believe in fairness.
If you are not a liberal, then you do not believe in a fair tax system.
If you are not a liberal, then you do not believe in fairness or a fair tax system.
Yea! That sounds just like conservatives all right! Hate them so much…
But it also gives us this:
If you are not a liberal, then you do not believe in equality.
If you are not a liberal, then you do not believe in an equal tax structure.
If you are not a liberal, then you do not believe in equality or an equal tax structure.
…Wait, aren’t liberals the ones that do not believe in an equal tax structure, but instead one that taxes the rich more?
Yes.
Oh…
Yeah. Sucks, doesn’t it? Turns out, you don’t really believe in fairness or equality at all—only when it fits your purposes, which brings us to our last two definitions. Liberals will be very familiar with the first one, because they accuse conservatives of being this word all the time:
self·ish
[sel-fish] Show IPA
adjective
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? That’s because a liberal is a:
hyp·o·crite
[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
In conclusion, the logic of liberalism is nothing more than wishful thinking on their part.