Is it really that bizarre? I obviously didn't intend to invoke the romantic or familial definition of the word, which leaves the more general definition. As I clarified, I mean that most people attribute most things that are good about the world (on all scales larger than the individual or family), and thus are extremely thankful for government. I don't think it's bizarre to describe this as "love."
> That's exactly what I said -- people believe that some government functions are desirable, and that taxation is necessary to those functions. That's very different than loving taxation, by any normal use of language.
No, I don't think it is. Would you agree that people would use the opposite word, "hate," to describe the act of removing taxes and thus (in their minds) removing the possibility of having all these nice things like welfare and infrastructure?
> This is not equivalent to "loving dieting".
There is a subtle difference, because the act of dieting is a purely personal decision that essentially only affects the dieter. It's more analogous to one's personal amount of taxation, which I already conceded is not widely loved. But even so, if dieting is the only effective way of acquiring a healthy weight, then it's not unreasonable to love that fact. It would certainly be vastly preferable to having no way of acquiring a healthy weight.
> People aren't "thankful for government" in some generalized sense, they are thankful for particular governments taking particular actions (and, quite often, the same people are also resentful of the same government taking different actions, and often broadly disapproving of even the existence of many other governments.)
I have already addressed this. I never said that people are thankful for any and all government actions. I said that people are thankful for government, because government does things they believe are overwhelming good and that could not be done without government.
> This is essentially (among other errors) the fallacy of composition -- taking something that is true of some component (some particular action by some particular government) of a larger category (government in general) and treating it as if it was true of the larger category as such.
Absolutely not. The key here is that people believe that only government can do the things that they are thankful for. They think that no government means a bad society. It would be a fallacy of composition if I said "people like social welfare programs, therefore people like governments since governments provide social welfare programs." But it's no longer a fallacy of composition if I assume that only governments can possible provide social welfare programs.
> The key here is that people believe that only government can do the things that they are thankful for.
Believing that government is essential for some desirable things does not mean loving government (or even having any emotion at all about government as such), any more than believign that government is essential for some undesirable things (a belief shared by many of the same people) means hating government.
> It would be a fallacy of composition if I said "people like social welfare programs, therefore people like governments since governments provide social welfare programs." But it's no longer a fallacy of composition if I assume that only governments can possible provide social welfare programs.
Yes, it is still exactly the fallacy of composition, the same way that "People hate aggressive wars, and people believe only governments can launch aggressive wars, so people hate government" is the fallacy of composition.
People can like or dislike things for which they see government as necessary without liking or disliking government. It is exactly the fallacy of composition to conflate like or dislike of particular actions of government with like or dislike of government, regardless of whether or not government is essential those actions.
I find your analysis of the fallacy of composition to be ridiculous. Again, I am not saying "people love infrastructure, therefore people love governments." I am saying "people love governments because they believe governments are the only way to have infrastructure." This isn't a fallacy, it's a true description of what many people actually believe and would openly admit to believing.
> the same way that "People hate aggressive wars, and people believe only governments can launch aggressive wars, so people hate government" is the fallacy of composition.
That's not a fallacy either. It just happens to be false, namely because most people don't hate aggressive wars.
Is it really that bizarre? I obviously didn't intend to invoke the romantic or familial definition of the word, which leaves the more general definition. As I clarified, I mean that most people attribute most things that are good about the world (on all scales larger than the individual or family), and thus are extremely thankful for government. I don't think it's bizarre to describe this as "love."
> That's exactly what I said -- people believe that some government functions are desirable, and that taxation is necessary to those functions. That's very different than loving taxation, by any normal use of language.
No, I don't think it is. Would you agree that people would use the opposite word, "hate," to describe the act of removing taxes and thus (in their minds) removing the possibility of having all these nice things like welfare and infrastructure?
> This is not equivalent to "loving dieting".
There is a subtle difference, because the act of dieting is a purely personal decision that essentially only affects the dieter. It's more analogous to one's personal amount of taxation, which I already conceded is not widely loved. But even so, if dieting is the only effective way of acquiring a healthy weight, then it's not unreasonable to love that fact. It would certainly be vastly preferable to having no way of acquiring a healthy weight.
> People aren't "thankful for government" in some generalized sense, they are thankful for particular governments taking particular actions (and, quite often, the same people are also resentful of the same government taking different actions, and often broadly disapproving of even the existence of many other governments.)
I have already addressed this. I never said that people are thankful for any and all government actions. I said that people are thankful for government, because government does things they believe are overwhelming good and that could not be done without government.
> This is essentially (among other errors) the fallacy of composition -- taking something that is true of some component (some particular action by some particular government) of a larger category (government in general) and treating it as if it was true of the larger category as such.
Absolutely not. The key here is that people believe that only government can do the things that they are thankful for. They think that no government means a bad society. It would be a fallacy of composition if I said "people like social welfare programs, therefore people like governments since governments provide social welfare programs." But it's no longer a fallacy of composition if I assume that only governments can possible provide social welfare programs.