Just Say "So?"

[Tim May]

When confronted with calls to "Do something!" or "We can't just stand by 
and watch!," I think of one word: "So?"

"If we don't intervene in Yakistan, the Pothurden minority will be 
brutalized!"

"So?"

"If we don't subsidize the production of ethanol, it will not succeed."

"So?"

"If we as a nation don't launch a major effort to land a man on Mars, it 
won't happen!"

"So?"

"We need to rebuild the World Trade Center, else America will have been 
defeated by the terrorists."

"So?"

"If we don't do something about online porn, it will get worse."

"So?"

Asking "So?" is a powerful antidote to what frequently crops up as a 
kind of debating error. (It may even have some Latin name, but I don't 
know it.)

This error can be summarized as:

Assumes a solution is required. Implies that there is some problem which 
must be resolved, which agreement must be reached on.  Thus, we must 
solve the problem in Yakistan, or the problem of ethanol cost, or Mars 
colonization, online porn, etc.

Asking "So?" says succinctly that the problem posed is not accepted as a 
problem which needs collective (or taxpayer-funded) solving. It also 
causes the other party, at least in some cases, to step back and attempt 
to explain why the "ethanol problem" or the "pornography problem" needs 
to be solved, instead of simply assuming it's a problem requiring 
collective solving with the only argument being how best to solve it.

I find it refreshing to think this way. I believe I first heard this 
point of view articulated in this simple form by Chip Morningstar, but 
it certainly is consistent with the libertarian points of view of Harry 
Browne, P.J. O'Rourke, and others.

Just Say "So?"