I like this post, and I have expressed the climate change argument (I’m against the regulation of CO2) in the modus tollens form you described. First, I think that conditionals like this do apply. In politics, perception can be reality. Phrase the conditional like this: if there is general concession that AGW (or ACC I guess we should say) is occurring, then the political ministrations are going to work such that it will be very likely that we will get CO2 regulation. Then the modus tollens works: we shouldn’t regulate CO2, therefore there shouldn’t be a general concession of AGW.

It’s a similar logic that applies to evolution. You may be able to conceive of both evolution as true and a god that overlooks the world and is the judge of morality, but many cannot. It’s either continue to defend creationism, or concede that there is no universal justice and that jungle law controls.

Now, as a hedonistic libertarian, I think that we should allow individual people to pursue their own ends no matter how counterintuitive they seem. If a greedy boss is paying his workers pennies a day, well, they agreed to it. And if he’s dumping sludge into a lake, well, he owns it. Philosophically speaking, we have no in-born obligations to nature, god, or our fellow man. But, if I say that publicly, the likely consequence is that my positions will be worked against by those who disagree, whereas if I sugar-coat it in happier terms—economic freedom is more important than mere egalitarianism!—it sells better.

And I think everyone does this. All positions have negative consequences, even purely rational liberalism (if such a thing there be), but pointing out your own negatives is counterproductive, particularly when the other side isn’t going to do that.

So, if the goal is truly to understand the mentality, don’t query the logic; ask what it accomplishes. If the goal is to subvert the accomplishments, then prepare for the same tactic to be used against you.