| There is an old joke that starts by asking you, "Have | | | | stop people from using certain plants and substances. |
| you stopped beating your wife yet?" Whether you | | | | Thus the debate skips over whether we should have |
| answer yes or no it sounds like you are admitting to | | | | anything to do with what people put in their bodies |
| being a wife beater. It's a practical joke based on the | | | | and becomes one about what kind of laws forced |
| use of an implicit premise - that you beat your wife. | | | | treatment is best. Question whether there should be |
| The technique is used for more than a laugh though. | | | | government involvement in this area and you're on |
| It's also a favorite of politicians, who use it to | | | | the fringe. You're not allowed in the "serious" |
| manipulate public opinion. | | | | debates, because you don't share this now "obvious" |
| You see, political manipulation is accomplished by | | | | premise. |
| controlling the framework in which others can argue | | | | War on Terror - Terror is not a nation or people, and |
| and ultimately even think about things. To get your | | | | so cannot be fought in a "war." Terrorism is a tactic, |
| viewpoint accepted without openly arguing it, for | | | | the specific acts are crimes, and the criminals should |
| example, you introduce it as an implicit premise of | | | | be captured and prosecuted. But the metaphorical |
| the debate. This helps you win the public over to | | | | use of the term "war on terror" has introduced the |
| your view in a more subtle way than open discussion. | | | | premise that this is a war, which allows governments |
| It can also exclude the likelihood of any serious | | | | unprecedented powers forever. Why forever? |
| opposing viewpoint. | | | | Because these crimes and tactics will always exist. A |
| Let's look at an example taken from current times | | | | "war on robbery" or a "war on murder," could justify |
| (this was originally written in 2008). The U.S. | | | | endless power and suspension of rights as well (and |
| government has been holding people in prisons for | | | | here again the word "suspension" reveals the premise |
| years without charges or access to attorneys, even | | | | that rights are bestowed by governments and so |
| while admitting that most of them have committed | | | | can be taken away by them). We might make |
| no crime. This is said to be okay because these | | | | sarcastic jokes if there was a "war on stealing," but a |
| prisoners are not U.S. citizens, and might be terrorists | | | | "war on terror" is no less silly. |
| (some of them certainly are). Why does a | | | | Social Security - Watch the debate and it becomes |
| supposedly liberty-loving public accept this violation of | | | | apparent that the implicit premise that the system |
| people's rights? Because the premise has been firmly | | | | must be saved is almost without opposition. Of |
| established in their minds that "rights" are granted to | | | | course it never was a "retirement fund" since no |
| citizens by governments and therefore don't apply to | | | | money was actually invested, and we could simply |
| non-citizens. | | | | provide the necessary welfare for any retirees who |
| Now, the founders of this country explicitly stated | | | | cannot provide for themselves. The additional |
| that rights are inherent in all humans, and fought | | | | premise that it is a retirement fund hides the fact |
| against the idea that they are mere "privileges" | | | | that today's poor workers must labor to provide |
| bestowed by governments or other authorities. But | | | | monthly checks to rich retirees. |
| the implicit premise of these issues has become the | | | | The use of an implicit premise is one of the many |
| idea that rights are for "members only." Even the | | | | powerful ways to manipulate public opinion. Notice |
| opposition is unable to make effective arguments | | | | how any argument that proceeds from it limits |
| against these current violations of human rights, | | | | debate and further strengthens the basic premise, |
| which is clear when they say that these detentions | | | | which is then almost never challenged. Argue about |
| are wrong because they'll eventually lead to violations | | | | HOW to stop drugs and you strengthen the idea |
| of citizen's rights - as though that is the only real | | | | that they MUST be stopped. Argue about HOW to |
| crime. | | | | fight a war and you get everyone agreeing that it IS |
| Implicit premises are a powerful method of control. | | | | a war. Argue about HOW to provide the social |
| We should get in the habit of recognizing the | | | | security checks retirees are OWED, and you argue |
| premises hidden in political debate. Then we can at | | | | FOR the idea that promises of past governments are |
| least honestly look at whether we agree with them | | | | obligations of current workers. This is political |
| or not. Here a couple more to consider. | | | | manipulation. |
| Drug Laws - The implicit premise is that we need to | | | | |