The Bumping Elbows Rule

"You can do anything you want so long as you don't bump elbows with somebody else."

-- Virginia Rohrbacher (1925-2000), c. 1965

The Bumping Elbows Rule (above) is a useful starting point for discussing the concept of freedom.  Consider that The Rule has two parts:  1) “You can do anything you want”; and, 2) “so long as you don’t bump elbows with somebody else.”  Keep in mind during this discussion that The Rule is more about what one *can* do rather than what one *cannot* do.

The first part, “You can do anything you want,” relates to our freedoms, which should be, generally speaking, open ended, except for when we infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, which is what the second part is all about.  “So long as you don’t bump elbows with somebody else” means so long as you do not create conflict with someone else (see The Conflict Avoidance Axiom).

  “Bumping elbows“ has a negative connotation in this context meaning to bother somebody else.  If you are at a movie theater or sports arena, for example, and are hogging the arm rests, then you are “bumping elbows.”  If you are at a crowded restaurant and are spreading out your arms and legs in a territorial manner invading other people’s personal spaces, then you are “bumping elbows.”  If you are throwing trash out of your car window onto somebody else’s lawn, then you are “bumping elbows.”

Bumping elbows is not “bumping elbows” when both participants agree to it (see Conflict Avoidance "One Off").  An example of when bumping elbows would be acceptable is when both parties agree to bump elbows instead of shaking hands because they agree that bumping elbows is a more sanitary method of greeting.  Since other layers of consideration are also possible (see The Conflict Avoidance Axiom), in order to avoid convoluted reasoning, “bumping elbows” is defined in the instant discussion as having a negative connotation.

The Bumping Elbows Rule can be rephrased as a logical statement:

IF you don’t bump elbows with somebody else,

THEN you can do anything you want.

An example of the above would be if you want to read “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.”  With the following assignments, The Bumping Elbows Rule can be represented with symbolic logic:

 A = You bump elbows with somebody else

¬A = You don’t bump elbows with somebody else

 B = You can do anything you want

¬B = You can’t do anything you want

The ¬ symbol means “not.”  Now, here is the symbolic logic for The Rule:

IF ¬A THEN B

The Rule can easily be manipulated with logical operators.  Modus pollens is a logical operator that just restates the obvious.  In purely symbolic terms, modus pollens looks like this:

P → Q

P

∴Q

The → symbol means “then,” “implies that,” or “leads to.” The ∴ symbol means “therefore,” “yields,” or “proves.” The above logical sequence consists of three statements: 1) P → Q; 2) P; and, 3) ∴Q. “P” and “Q” can be any statements.

This is what modus pollens looks like when applied to The Bumping Elbows Rule:

¬A → B

¬A

∴B

Reverting back to the original phrases, modus pollens for The Rule becomes:

IF you don’t bump elbows with somebody else,

THEN you can do anything you want.

You don’t bump elbows with somebody else.

Therefore, you can do anything you want.

Modus tollens is a logical operator that considers another possibility.  In purely symbolic notation, it goes like this:

P → Q

¬Q 

∴¬P

When applied to The Rule, modus tollens symbolically looks like this:

¬A → B

¬B

∴A

Reverting back to the original phrases, modus tollens for The Rule becomes:

IF you don’t bump elbows with somebody else,

THEN you can do anything you want.

You can’t do anything you want.

Therefore, you bump elbows with somebody else.

A possible explanation for the above sequence might be that you can’t do anything you want because you are in prison, and the reason that you are in prison is that you “bumped elbows” with somebody else.

The Rule can also be manipulated with two false arguments.  These false arguments are useful to know because they help to determine when somebody is trying to obtain incorrect conclusions to an argument.

“Affirming the consequent” is an example of a false argument.  In purely symbolic terms, it looks like this:

P → Q

Q 

∴P

The above conclusion is false!  (The red color is intended to emphasize that the conclusion is false.)  Although the following statements use the non-standard symbols ¬∴ for “not therefore,” it more accurately represents affirming the consequent.

P → Q

Q 

¬∴P

The above statements mean “if P then Q”; “Q”; and, “not therefore P”.  The correct conclusion in the above statements is that P may be either TRUE or FALSE.  (The words “TRUE” and “FALSE” are spelled in all capital letters in this discussion when they mean true or false in the sense of symbolic logic.)

Here is affirming the consequent as it applies symbolically to The Rule:

¬A → B

B 

¬∴¬A

Here is affirming the consequent in the original phrases:

IF you don’t bump elbows with somebody else,

THEN you can do anything you want.

You do anything you want.

Not therefore, you don’t bump elbows with somebody else.

An example of the above would be an insane person who does things without any regard for anyone else.  This insane person may or may not be “bumping elbows” with other people at the time.

“Denying the antecedent” is another example of a false argument.  In pure symbolic logic, denying the antecedent looks like this:

P → Q

¬P 

¬∴¬Q

If P, then Q.  Not P.  Not therefore, not Q.  Here is denying the antecedent as it applies symbolically to The Rule:

¬A → B

A 

¬∴¬B

Here is denying the antecedent in the original phrases:

IF you don’t bump elbows with somebody else,

THEN you can do anything you want.

You bump elbows with somebody else.

Not therefore, you can’t do anything you want.

An example of the above scenario would be a criminal who has not been arrested, yet.

A truth table is a useful way of summarizing the possibilities in logical statements.

Fig. A, Symbolic Truth Table of Statement

Fig. A is a symbolic truth table for The Rule that takes into account every possible scenario:  both A and B are TRUE; both A and B are FALSE; A is TRUE and B is FALSE; and, A is FALSE and B is TRUE.  Four possible scenarios exist and each possible scenario forms a row in the truth table.  The row colored red, for example, is the scenario where A is FALSE, ¬A is TRUE, B is FALSE, and ¬A → B is FALSE.  Notice, by the way, that this is the only possible scenario where ¬A → B is FALSE.

This truth table can also be shown with the original phrases.

Fig. B, The Bumping Elbows Rule Truth Table

Fig. B shows the truth table with the original phrases from The Rule.  The red row is the scenario where the Bumping Elbows Rule is FALSE:  “You don’t bump elbows with somebody else” and “You can’t do anything you want.”  An example of this scenario is that you are being coerced by someone else while minding your own business.

The Bumping Elbows Rule is a useful starting point for discussing the concept of freedom.  Consider, for example, “having enough elbow room.”  The reason one wants “enough elbow room” is to be able to do what one wants without “bumping elbows” with somebody else.  Consider, for example, the freedom to state one’s opinion.  One should be able to state any opinion whatsoever because stating an opinion is not “bumping an elbow.”  Consider, for example, victimless crimes (no elbows were bumped).

There is no such thing as total freedom:  even if you are an alpha ape, you still can’t just do anything that you want because you could still be overcome by, say, numerous chimpanzees.  (You might also be limited in your actions by Mrs. Alpha.)

The Bumping Elbows Rule has two parts:  1) “You can do anything you want”; and, 2) “so long as you don’t bump elbows with somebody else.”  This rule is more about what one *can* do rather than what one *cannot* do.

Do not bump elbows.

Freedoms are open ended,

But for that one thing.

Suggested Comments:

Is it ok to elbow your way to the top?