>>A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce
>>positive results, because they always force people to act against
>>their own interests. When a particular policy fails, it is propped up
>>by other regulations in the hopes that more control will produce
>>better results. Sometimes the results are so destructive they must
>>either be removed, or the people must be violently oppressed to make
>>them accept it.
Congratulations for inventing a Straw man argument.
If "When a particular policy fails, it is propped up by other
regulations in the hopes that more control will produce better
results...", then, this does not necessarily mean that all regulations
that involve more control do so by degrees. Some regulations can be
implemented by degrees and others can require all at once common sense
appliction, like the state deciding to change the side of the road we
drive on. It is simply not in the argument that regulators would
implement a plan that would make traffic drive against traffic in the
same lane.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply
does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as
well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the
person.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's
position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is
to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's
actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to
the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's
position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical
technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it
carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's
actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat
training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the
enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is,
naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic
to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is
occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden
dummy argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
