NoemiDelgado

April28,2014
Periods34
Adlerv.CaseyEssay
Prompt2

WhatMakesWritingPersuasive?
Forcenturieshumanshavebeenusingwrittenwordstoexpresstheiropinionsandideas,inthe
hopesthatotherswilltakethesamestandasthem.Theabilitytopresentanargumentinapersuasive
manneristheonlywayonecanconvinceothersthattheirpointofviewisvalid.Thefunctionof
governmentisoneofthemostwidelydebatedtopics,becauseitplayssuchaprimaryrolein
everyoneslives.Peopleinallspectrumsoflifehaveopinionsonthistopic,buttheonlywayforthese
opinionstobecomeknowistoexpressthemtothepublic.DougCaseyandMortimerJ.Adlerhave
bothwrittenarticlesillustratingtheiropinionsaboutwhetherornotagovernmentisnecessary.Doug
Casey,alibertarianeconomistandwellknownfinancialauthor,arguesthatgovernmentisapurelyevil
forcethatisnotnecessary.Hemakesthisargumentinhisarticletitled,IsGovernmentNecessary?
AdlerwasanauthorandAmericanphilosopher,whohadstrongbeliefsabouttheimportanceof
government,whichheexpressedinhisarticle,TheNecessityofGovernment.Thedifferencesbetween
thesetwoarticlesarecrucialtounderstandingwhyAdlersargumentismorecompellingthanCaseys.
Adlerbacksupeverystatementhemakeswithlogicandreason,addressespossibledoubtswith
counterargumentsandusesbothhypotheticalscenariosandanalogiestoprovehispoints.Caseyfailsto
usethesepersuasiontechniques,makinghisarticleweakandunconvincing.
Adlersarticletakesanormativeapproachtothedebateathand,meaningheuseslogicand
reasontodefendhisargument.Caseydoestheexactoppositebyonlyusingdescriptivestatements,
examplesfromhistoryandcurrentevents,toarguehispoint.Caseyslackoflogicandreasoncauses
hisargumenttoseemquestionable.BeforeAdlerevenbeginstomakehiscaseaboutthenecessityof
government,heexplainswhyhewilluseamoreexplicitlynormativeapproachthanmostpolitical
philosophers.Hedoessointhefollowingexcerpt,Becauseofthedependenceofpoliticalthoughtupon
politicalhistory,thereisaninveteratetendencyonthepartofpoliticalphilosopherstointertwine
descriptiveorhistoricalstatementswithnormativejudgements...Inmanycasesnormativejudgementsor
evaluationsareimplicitinstatements,thatonthesurface,havethecharacterofstatementsoffactand
theyareleftimplicit,maskedorconcealedbyappealstohistoricalevidence,ratherthanexpressed
explicitlyinnormativetermsanddefendedassuch(Adler1).Adlermakesthepointthattoooften
examplesfromhistoryareusedtoobscurelogicandreason.Becauseofthis,heonlymakesarguments
thatdrawfromnormativeevidence.Adlersuseofreasonisstronglydisplayedinthefollowingargument
forwhygovernmentisnecessaryinordertokeeppeace,Intheabsenceofgovernment,eachindividual
wouldhavetodefendhimselfagainstaggressionbyotherswithwhateverpowerisathisdisposal.The
probabilityishighthatwholesaleviolencewouldensure.Forthisreason,aswellasforthereasonthat,
withoutauthorizedtribunalstosettledisputes,thesettlementofthemwouldprobablyinvolverecourseto
violence,theabsenceofgovernmentisastateofwarnotpeace(Adler9).Adleruseslogictoprove
hispoint,ratherthanonespecificinstance,makingtheargumenttrueforanyscenario.DougCasey,on
theotherhand,usesspecifichistoricalandcurrenteventsasevidence.Oneexampleofthisiswhenhe
statesthat,ThelawsofNaziGermanyandtheUSSRarenowwidelyrecognizedascriminalfantasies
thatgainedrealityonagrandscale.Butatthetimethoseregimeshadpower,theyweretreatedwiththe
respectgrantedtoanylegalsystem.Governmentsbecomelegalorofficialbygainingpower.Thefactis
thateverygovernmentwasfoundedongrossillegalitieswarorrevoltagainstitspredecessorisrarely
anissue(Casey3).Caseybasesthisentirejustificationontwohistoricalexamples,NaziGermanyand
theUSSR,leavingoutanyuniversallogic.Becauseheonlyexplainshisargumentintermsoftwovery
specificsituations,theargumentsseemstopertainonlytothoseexamplesandnotbenecessarily
generalizable.Adlersabilitytouseonlynormativestatementsmakeshisarticlestronger,because,unlike
Casey,theargumentshemakesaretrueforthegeneralideaofgovernment.
Adlersuseofcounterargumentsallowshimtoaddressdoubtsthatreadersmayhaveabouthis
pointofview.Caseyfailstoaddresspotentialdoubtsaboutthestatementsthathemakes,leavinghis
argumentsincomplete.Adlersfollowingcounterargumentexplainswhygovernmentisintrinsically
good,eventhoughgovernmentshaveactedbadlyinthepast,Isubmitthatthereisnothingaboutthe
natureofgovernmentthatmakesitimpossibleforittobefreefromabuses,imperfections,orinjustices.
Thisremainstrueevenifoneweretoaddthat,governmentbeingwhatitisandmenbeingwhatthey
are,anygovernmentinstitutedandcarriedoutbymanwillalwaysreflecttoacertainextentthe
weaknessesandimperfectionsofitshumanconstituentsandagents(Adler10).Adlerprovestheidea
ofagovernmentbeingeviltobeamisconceptionbyexplainingthatagovernmentcanonlybeevilby
faultofthepeoplerunningit,nottheinstitutionitself.AnotherexampleofAdleraddressingpossible
doubtscanbeseeninthestatementthatfollows,Theonlyreasonthatmightbegivenforthinkingthe
contrarywouldbetheviewthatcompleteautonomyonthepartofeveryindividualisanabsolutegood
forifthiswerethecase,thengovernment,bytakingautonomyawayfromtheindividualincertain
matters,whileleavingitintactinothers,wouldnecessarilybeevil.Thislineofargumentcanreadilybe
showntobeselfdefeating.Tobeanecessaryevil,governmenthastobenecessary,inthefirstplace.
Butwhyisgovernmentnecessary?Because,aswehaveseen,completeautonomyonthepartof
individualsisincompatiblewiththeireffectivecooperationforacommonpurposeandwiththeirpeaceful
interactionincommunallife(Adler11).Adlersuccessfullymakeshiscounterargumentbyfirst
presentingthepossibledoubtandthenbreakingdownwhyitisnotvalid.Caseyleavesreaderswith
manyunaddressedquestionanddoubtsthroughouthisarticle.Themostobviousbeing,howwould
societyfunctionwithoutagovernment?Hewritesfourpagesonwhygovernmentisnotnecessary,
withoutoncementioningpossiblenegativeconsequencesofaworldwithoutit.Caseydoesmakea
counterargumentwhenhesays,What,arguably,makesgovernmentnecessaryistheneedfor
protectionfromother,evenmoredangerous,governments.Ibelieveacasecanbemadethatmodern
technologyobviatesthisfunction(Casey3).Thisattemptatcounterargumentsisextremelyweakasit
doesnotdevelophisresponse.Caseyissovaguethathecreatesevenmoreconfusionanddoubtsfor
hisreaders:Whatkindsoftechnology?Howwouldthistechnologybeused?Whowouldbe
authorizedtouseit?Whowouldmakesureitwasnotusedforthewrongpurpose?Oneof
Adlersstrongestqualitiesishisuseofcounterarguments,whichkeepreadersfromhavingunanswered
questionsanduncertainties.PartofwhyCaseysarticleisunconvincingisbecauseheleavesreaders
withsomanyunaddresseddoubts.
Adlersuseofanalogiesandscenariosmakesitpossibletovisualizehisargumentswhenone
canvisualizewhattheauthorissayingtheyaremoreeasilyconvinced.Caseysviewsseemunrealistic,
becausehefailstousethistechnique.Adlerreliesveryheavilyonahypotheticalscenariothathesetsup
inhisarticle.Thescenarioisasfollows,Forthepurposeofansweringthisquestion,Iproposeto
consideranextremelysimplemodelofsociallife...Threescientistsassociateforthepurposeofexploring
theupperreachesoftheAmazon.Beforetheyembarkonthiscommonenterprise,theyrealizethat,ata
certainpointintheirexploration,theywillbeentirelyontheirowninthejungle.Eachofthemrecognizes
thathecouldnotdoaloneorbyhimselfwhatitmaybepossibleforthesmallorganizedgrouptodo,
andeachiswillingtojointhegroupforthatreason(Adler4).Adlerusesthethreescientistthought
experimenttohelphisreadersunderstandtheimportanceofhavingagoverningsystem.Adleralso
usesananalogycomparingtheautonomyofachildtotheautonomyofagovernedcitizen.Hewrites,
Governmentnevercompletelyreplacesautonomyandnevercan.Eventheyoungchildexercises
autonomyinmanyrespects,forthestrictestandmostsupervisoryparentsdonotandcannotregulate
everyaspectofthechildsbehavior,norcantheyissueedictsthatdecideeverythingthatthechilddoes
frommomenttomoment(Adler3).ThisanalogysimplifiesAdlersargument,makingiteasierto
comprehend.Caseydoesnotuseasinglehypotheticalscenariooranalogyinhisarticle.Ifhehadused
thistechnique,someofhisargumentsmayhaveseemedmoreconcreteandmorerelatable.Theuseof
analogiesandscenarios,inpersuasivewriting,makesconceptseasierforreaderstograsp.
WhenanalyzingbothAdlerandCaseysarticles,itisclearthatAdlermakesthemore
compellingargument.TherearevariousfactorsthatmakeAdlerswritingismorepersuasivethan
Caseys.Adlerusesnormativereasoning,addressescounterargumentsandusesscenariosand
analogies,whileCaseyfailstouseanyofthesestrategiessuccessfully,ordoesnotattempttousethem
atall.BehindtheinitialinstinctthereaderhastosidewithAdlersargumentisareactiontohis
persuasivetechniques.Afterunderstandingthesereactions,onecantakeawayseveralwritingtoolsthat
successfullyconvincereaders.Afterall,itdoesnotmatterhowvalidyourpointofviewisifyoucannot
expressitinacompellingmanner.