Answer to No. 8a:
If you want to talk about validity and invalidity, you just committed the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Coincidental Correlation)," and besides, your own argument above has been used in the past by bad guys, so if we were to accept it as valid, then you have just repudiated yourself, even if you really are a good guy inside. WHO has used, or might have used, a particular argument or invocation of rights, or WHY they allegedly chose to use it, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with its validity. Duh.

And to arbitrarily conclude that the argument is a "code word" for an evil hidden agenda is itself a use of the ad hominem fallacy (attacking the person and not the argument), in an attempt to change the subject entirely by bringing in a bizarre, overtly hostile red herring attack out of left field (which actually should call into question the motives of the attackers, not the attacked). 

Kneejerk Objection No. 8b (To a claim of individual rights): 
"You're only holding that position because somebody's paying you to do so (and I can't imagine anyone holding such a position for any other reason)!" 

Answer to No. 8b: 

What???      You mean you really can't believe someone would take a position based on principles???    Would that be because you would never do so yourself??? 
Or is it that you simply cannot refute the real reasons for my position, and won't admit it?
 

This is not only another subject-changing ad hominem attack on the person and not the argument, but it says even more about the attackers — that either:
a) they're too ignorant to understand the position, but they want to attack it anyway, 
b) they themselves would never have the strength of character to fight for a principle for the sake of principle (and therefore cannot and will not understand how anyone else would), 
and/or that 
c) they themselves would change their positions on anything if they were promised enough money or government benefits, and thus are ready to ascribe the motives they're personally familiar with to anyone else.

Those who insist "every man has his price," after all, are ultimately talking only about themselves, and they're irrationally hoping any depravity found in others might somehow serve as absolution for their own. 

Often it never occurs to them as big-government advocates (or, if it does, they refuse to accept the idea), that people really can and do advocate private solutions to problems, and even passionately oppose government solutions as a matter of principle.  And that representatives of private industry can and do tell the truth (and it takes WORK for reporters to tell which ones do and which ones don't) and that those whose life or livelihood could be crippled by the government solutions would actually seek out such advocates of non-governmental solutions,  whether from industry, academia or the professions, and actually choose to have them and not their enemies speak for them (duh).  Of course, big-government advocates almost never object when recipients of government benefits are offered opportunities to speak on behalf of government, by far the biggest special-interest group there is!

<BACK to Kneejerk Index