To your surprise and disappointment, the water doesn't become solid. If
anything, it becomes even less solid as a good chunk of it turns to a
gaseous state. What would be the rational reaction to this unfolding of
events? It would probably be along the lines of: "Well, this didn't
work. I was wrong. Water doesn't become solid when heated; in fact, it
does the exact opposite. Maybe, just maybe, if I do the opposite and
make the water's temperature drop, it will become solid." You might then
enthusiastically test this new theory.
Now, what would you think of someone in the same situation who, after
seeing the water turn into vapour when heated, instead decides to blow
on the fire to turn up the heat even more, arguing that "it will become
solid eventually!" Not only that, but he vigorously attacks anyone who
suggests to him that maybe his theory isn't valid, and that doing the
opposite of what he's doing might be worth a try. He even accuses the
skeptics of not wanting him to get ice.
To me, the second scenario is exactly how the average Big Government
advocate acts. Let me explain.
After World War II, the percentage of people living below the poverty
level started dropping dramatically in the United States, on average by
1% every year. Just imagine what this means: If this had kept on,
poverty in America would today be more or less nonexistent. Now enter
President Johnson and his Great Society project.
Within a few years, the poverty level stopped declining, and has
either risen or stagnated ever since. Yet, do you hear any leftist say,
"Okay, the welfare state doesn't work; we need to scrap it and try
something else"? Of course not, all you hear is, “We need more money!”
even though the budgets for the Great Society programs have never
You see, even if I'm willing to examine the theory that governmental
programs could work, the way its advocates act is fundamentally
anti-scientific. If the State makes a law or government program with a
stated goal (reduce poverty, increase the safety of citizens, find
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.) and after a few years, the
exact opposite has happened, its proponents have to at the very least
admit the failure, assuming they really care about the stated goal, that
is. Why does this never happen?