Skip to main content

The Should Fallacy

In the history of this world, there is perhaps no form of marketing or protracted syntactical destruction that could ever aspire to achieve as much as the word should has attained in the English language.

As much as we rely upon language to convey and interpret meaning, those messages are only worth as much validity as they carry with them. 

In dissemination, the remainder becomes hollow conventional wisdom.

As it turns out, many purveyors of the word should have been selling you ideological snake oil.

The Should Fallacy

All beliefs are harnessed through axiomatic distinctions. This author claims not to have any solutions to this world's many perceived problems, as no honest economist will report anything more than a menu of tradeoffs; moreover, I represent only my own beliefs intimately and inseparably hinged to the limits of my own experience and understanding. This is the human condition, a perpetual struggle to maximize one's lot in life while minimizing the attending struggle.

The human condition is always such that the individual may only represent himself and his perception, which he or she has come to conveniently accept as his or her own useful reality.

To assume that such a reality is ubiquitous is to undermine the possibility of alternative dimensions of thought, belief, experience and perception, which is a claim against the value of the most atomic and fundamental aspect of the individual, and incidentally that which humanity perceives as community, civilization, or society.

Nothing should or shouldn't be. These words disguise a more sophisticated collection of underlying dynamics which often systematically collaborate to effect the consequences or results which escape the individual who is admittedly unable to capture, translate, reconcile or rationalize the phenomenon in his or her own limited sphere of comprehension.

In the end, the reader might benefit from a more thorough examination of the word should before or after sensing the intuitive demand to employ its utility in conversation. In these cases, consider the context and ask why or why not it should be that way. This will aid in the reader's understanding of world dynamics and precisely why the word is a mere disguise for limited human understanding or the dispirited pursuit of it.



The Subjectivity of Should


All human behavior and thought is rational. It is and can be nothing more or less. One's relative inability to understand one's experience or position is not sufficient cause to undermine or discredit this natural dynamic.

In the end, we may agree or disagree; however, this alone fails to justify any claim on the extent to which a case should or shouldn't be. These are merely opinions in a world saturated by them.

No answers can be absolutely known. Truth is only that which man is willing to accept, and then willing to perpetuate, the latter continuing into that which becomes tradition or axiom-laden theoretical dispositions tested only occasionally by a minor segment of the population bearing once more only an alternative set of built-in assumptions, effectively tilting the conversation toward a fresher zeitgeist, but hardly anywhere nearer to universal truth.

This author's guiding principle happens to be that of freedom.

Of course, all discourse may be immediately obstructed by this axiomatic distinction, as this world is full of all types who may make claims against the value of freedom. Are they wrong? No. Are they right? No. They just are. Just as nothing should or shouldn't be, right and wrong are human conventions which dilute the otherwise clearer and purer understanding of human action.

Opinions increasingly populate this planet only to eventually become concrete "evidence" or "tradition" against which all progressive understanding must then operate. This will not only aid in one's ability to understand and empathize with others, but also with one's own self.

And this not only convolutes the meaning of truth, but it makes it far more difficult to find in the tumultuous storm of emerging social inertia which displaces the value of truth in favor of the convenient platitudes and various forms of sophistry which have served those who continue to stock the shelves of intellectual fan fiction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

The Cost of Government is What It Spends, Not What It Taxes

The cost of government is the quantity it spends, not the quantity it taxes; that cost representing the financial burden imposed upon those who pay the taxes and all who transact within that economy or through its common currency. Likewise, governments can either take the people’s money through taxation or they can take the people’s purchasing power through money-printing (or the like).  Therefore, the argument against tax cuts requires further context to appreciate why tax cuts have failed and will continue to fail to deliver economic growth, especially where those tax cuts promote or serve excess indulgence and cheap speculation. In short, it’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive, or that reducing the tax liability of the wealthiest in society “doesn’t work”; rather, the fact is that the public debt is so high that the country simply cannot afford those tax cuts without defaulting on its debts or — which is the same — covering them through inflation (i.e. money-printing,...