Neal's Workshop

Victor Davis Hanson over at Cato Unbound makes the following logical fallacy:

No humane or civilized society can exist long when the laws — and there are no statutes more fundamental than those governing citizenship and entry into a nation — are systematically flaunted by employer, government itself, and immigrants alike. If one talks to Korean, Punjabi, or Southeast Asian immigrants who came here legally, and who try to have relatives do the same, there is a great deal of resentment that the law is not being applied equitably, and has lost both its legal and moral force.

Hanson's argument can be summed up as follows:

1. Laws are necessary for a humane or civilized society to exist.
2. Laws that regulate immigration exist.
3. These immigration laws are being broken.
4. Therefore, society will cease to be civilized or humane.

He then makes an appeal to pity by reference to those who immigrated to the United States legally.

The fundamental flaw (Taking a pass on his appeal to pity) in Victor Davis Hanson's argument is point one, that laws must exist in order for society to be civil or humane. This assumption begs the question: are humans naturally inhumane and uncivil?

If individuals must be regulated by force to coexist as a civilized, humane society, then government, or law, is necessary. I do not think this is the case. Despite the widespread intrusion of the state into the lives of peaceful individuals all over the world, the state is not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. In addition to or as a result of these less-than-god-like inadequacies, the state, in all its inefficiency, could never reverse inhumane, uncivil human behavior if such behaviors were the natural state of man.

The natural state of man is to perpetuate his own existence. This natural state is a right, and it is all that is necessary for a humane and civilized society to exist. Why? Because it is self-regulating. The perpetuation of one's own existence demands productivity and peaceful trade as destructive behaviors are self-defeating. As such, no government-ordained law is necessary.

If you read Hanson's article, you might have noticed his use of "law", "legal", "illegal", "legality" or "illegality": by my count, these words were employed some nineteen times. As such and in accordance with his fallacious argument as detailed above, I submit Hanson's logical fallacy as a common example of logical error over at Wikipedia. Let's call it the appeal to legality.

The only relevant "law" is that which results from human interaction. Government ordained laws are merely regulatory rhetoric with no moral foundation. I wonder Mr. Hanson, when Americans were breaking laws escorting individuals on the underground railroad, were they being more or less humane or civilized?

The appeal to legality is a red herring. Astute reader beware.