Seeking logical coherence in political discourse
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon of New Zealand recently faced challenges regarding his party’s decision to repeal the smokefree legislation. This controversy stemmed from his claim that limiting cigarette sales to a single store in Northland would escalate crime and foster a black market. However, journalists highlighted inaccuracies in Luxon's assertion, noting that there would actually be 18 stores, not just one.
In response, during a press conference, Luxon attempted to clarify, suggesting he misspoke. He argued that the proposed policy would only allow a few stores to sell cigarettes across large regions, which would attract crime to these outlets and promote a black market. Luxon transformed his response into a logical point, stating: “[It] doesn't change a thing. The bigger point still holds that actually the reason why we opposed the legislation at the time is - and remember it hasn't taken effect, it's come into law but it hasn't taken effect - was simply to say we think that's the wrong way to go about it. […] Limiting distribution in that way, concentrating it in a few retail outlets, makes those stores a real magnet for crime, particularly in small towns up and down New Zealand - and importantly will drive into a black market." He suggests that the crux of the matter lies not in the exact number of stores, but in the scarcity of them, which could lead to concentrated crime and a black market.
This point holds a logical coherence: whether it is one or 18 stores in large regions, the essential fear is the limited number of outlets, potentially sufficient for the anticipated negative outcomes. While not strictly valid in a logicians' sense, this argument is logically strong or could be further strengthened with additional reasoning.
In a blog post last week, we discussed an instance where Luxon was presented with a logical point by Ryan Bridge, specifically that the logic Luxon applied to tobacco could similarly be applied to cannabis in terms of legal considerations and distribution. Luxon's response was to dismiss this as a 'different story'. In doing so, he seemed to overlook the logical point and instead focused on the specifics of the argument. This approach implies a misconception that altering the content of an argument can destroy its logical foundation. One of the key strengths of logical reasoning in decision-making is its invariance to changes in content.
One week later, Luxon reiterated his stance by acknowledging errors in his initial facts but maintained that the foundational reasoning remained unchanged: limited distribution leads to increased crime and a black market. This principle, as Bridge highlighted, applies as much to cannabis as it does to cigarettes. The existence of a black market for cannabis is solely due to the absence of legal distribution channels. The principle of applying the same logical framework, regardless of the subject matter ("same logic, same response"), is evident here. However, Luxon's varying approaches in different contexts raise concerns. His application of logic seems to fluctuate, mirroring a student who understands enough to apply logic in specific scenarios but not uniformly across different contexts. Such a hesitant approach to applying logical principles, especially by a government in alliance with a demagogical party, is troubling. It suggests an inconsistency in the application of logical analysis in policy-making, which is concerning for anyone with an understanding of logic."
Post-Blog Edit:
Luxon doubled down on his position during an interview on the morning show today, offering statements that align even more closely with the themes of this blog: “I just think it's pretty difficult to sort of manage going forward, but the major reason is that limiting distribution creates a black market and ultimately will create more crime." These comments provide a clearer insight into his reasoning and further underscore the points discussed in our blog regarding logical coherence in political discourse.
