I have been stuck arguing with a friend from Texas about government. He is a big fan of less regulation, less government, less interference…the usual vapid tall tales of woe you can expect from stereotypical Texans.

I have just been trying to convince him, in my best Kansan conservative fashion, that his position is actually very anti-graft yet pro-regulation. In fact, as he complained about the manner in which legislators are able to spend money, I asked him “so, it seems you think they need more guidance, perhaps some regulation, on the allocation of funds?” Even more ironic is the fact that he is working with companies to help them navigate security regulations — he is making a living consulting with companies on how to abide by data protection regulations, and he is a hardliner at that.

My revelation of these contradictions to him seemed to have slowed things down a little, but then he countered with the argument that a legislator stealing money should not be considered corrupt if they do it in the open. Er, curve ball. I actually think he means that no one should be accused of breaking the law if they say they do not recognize the laws they are breaking, or there is “insufficient” evidence as determined by the accused. Hmmm, who does that remind me of…?

The logical twists and turns he has taken in order to find a way to argue against government makes me think his eventual position will be more like an overly salted pretzel rather than the well seasoned meal he thinks he is serving.

If I remember correctly, the last time I saw him he tried to convince me that the US was actually winning the Vietnam War but were defeated by liberals at home. More recently he has tried to suggest that there is no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause cancer, based on the premise that a lack of absolute certainty means scientific proof is inherently insufficient. He said this means we must accept prejudice as a natural condition and stop trying to make it seem like a bad thing. I told him that empiricism is certainly no proof that prejudice is natural, but rather the opposite when coupled with a value system, and to try and spin the two into a meaningless blend was to take a painfully shallow position. What possible point could someone have in trying to claim the word “prejudice” as a positive and natural human condition?

Alas, the one thing we seem to agree on is that diesel is the future transportation energy source of choice.

And that says a lot to me, given the distance of opinion we have on everything else.