How often have you heard the impassioned rationale that, "If we hadn't done such and such, it would have been worse."  The flipside of the argument is, "If we don't do this, this horror will happen."

 A recent example of this reasoning surfaced in a news story:

 "You might ask, 'What good is Chicago's handgun law if so many of our young people are still being shot?'" Nance-Holt said. "All I can say is, imagine how many more would be if the law were not there."

Yes, imagine it- for the reasoning here relies only on imagination.  I am not going to say that the logic is completely flawed, since what we're talking about here is basically just cause and effect.  The real flaw resides in the fact that we are asked to set public policy based on these assertions.  I may be naïve and idealistic, but I believe that any kind of restriction on the liberty of anybody by the state should be based only on the best evidence, the most compelling argumentation, and a constitutional process.

Better yet, the public policy measure should be testable in principle and actually tested in practice.  Even this may not be enough to justify sweeping impositions on the American people- or the world's citizenry- but it represents, I believe, the bare minimum.

Believe it or not, I am not here trying to make an argument about gun control.  I am using this recent manifestation of the argument to show that while we might imagine we will get X, in fact we will get Y.

Consider:  In 1976, Washington DC basically banned handguns altogether.  The homicide rate shot up 200%.  In 1986, Florida passed a right-to-carry law.  Today, its homicide rate is among the lowest in the nation.  It is lower than most cities and states where gun control is stricter.  For example, since 1999, Florida, which has four million more people than Illinois has (average of 16.8 million and 12.5 million, respectively), had 4,961 homicides by firearm whereas in the same period, Illinois had 5,301.  (Source:  CDC)

Imagine that.

As I said, in one sense we're just talking about an argument from cause and effect.  What distinguishes a bad argument from cause and effect from a good argument can be boiled down to three elements that the bad ones tend to have in common.

1.  The 'solution' has to be implemented fast.  It is argued that there is no time for careful examination, testing, and dispute, because… otherwise it will be the end of the world.

2.  The solution nearly always requires some massive imposition on civil rights and liberties, some burden put on us that we should bear with joy because, well, we're preventing the end of the world.

3.  We are asked to set against the actual consequences, which are often severe, the imagined consequences which are almost always… as I said… the end of the world.

Obama's Stimulus Bill is a great example of something rushed through in a panic.  (We could also include the TARP bill under Bush.)   The mad rush to vaccinate millions of Americans against the not-so-deadly 'Swine Flu' is another.  We are told by Global Warming alarmists that if we wait for the really good evidence for Global Warming, it literally will be the end of the world.

In light of the need to stave off the destruction of the earth, activists and public officials are advancing numerous measures that under normal circumstances would be declared, on sight, tyrannical.  Some are even calling for a global China-like 'one child policy.'

To allegedly diminish homicides we're all supposed to happily dispense with our constitutional right to bear arms.  To revive the economy we're supposed to joyfully welcome our government taking on trillions more in debt and then patriotically pay higher taxes when the bill comes due.

The consequences of these burdensome and hastily advanced measures are often unpleasant.  For example, in 1976, 500 people ended up with Guillain-Barre syndrome.  25 died.  Actual deaths from the swine flu:  1.

In the face of what actually happened, public health officials retort that if millions of Americans had not been vaccinated, it would have been even worse.  Really?  Fast forward to today.  It was recently reported that the cases of flu has been very low and that the Swine Flu epidemic itself has managed to fizzle out. 

While the actual threat ended up being quite minor, this did not stop the CDC and states from preparing severe 'pandemic' measures. For example, the state of New York required - until a court luckily intervened (this time)- that health officials get vaccinated or lose their jobs. 

The actual consequence of Obama's Stimulus Bill appears to be higher unemployment and eventually higher taxes.  Their answer:  "It would have been worse." 

The actual consequences of global warming measures will almost certainly be severe:  economic earthquakes and global repression of civil rights.  If the planet, 20 years on, is still warm or warming despite the fact that Climate activists succeeded in achieving all of their tyrannical desires, we can be sure that they will say, "But it would have been worse."

When I survey the intellectual and political landscape, I am left with this conclusion:  it is the job of every citizen to watch our leaders like a hawk, never, ever, ever giving into them on any area of public policy that is not supported by incontrovertible empirical evidence that can be reproduced right before our eyes. 

That isn't to say that they can't issue their best judgments from the evidence that they have on hand.  Indeed, they can put it out there in the hopes of persuading as many people as possible to adopt their suggested measures on an individual basis.  This is different from coercion and measures that blanket the entire country based on imagined outcomes.  Moreover, even if the evidence for their scenario is quite good, the process must be advanced slowly and deliberately with the utmost transparency.

I concede that there may be instances where the process takes too long and the hastily drawn conclusion and recommendations may be correct.  Such situations appear to be pretty rare.  They are the exceptions, not the rule.  Public policy should be set based on the rule, not the exceptions.  The occasional devastating exception is the price for a free society.  If persuasion fails, and people die, it will be said that this is a terrible consequence.  I will agree.  But I will say, "But if you had used coercion, it would have been worse.  Your way, people would probably have still died, but my way the same amount or fewer would have died, and at least we preserved liberty." 

And I think I have a better chance of being right than those who currently employ the argument.

Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  He is the author of the Birth Pangs series which contain political, theological, and philosophical explorations set against the backdrop of an America reduced to anarchy by foreign invaders.