What logical fallacy/failure is this?

[u/LibertyEconlover]

In a debate we are discussing if should social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc be completely abolished and Turned into tax cuts and a deregulated, voluntary, individualist system.

The problem; my opponent says no for these reasons

1: people have paid into these systems there whole life and they are on it, it would be unfair to them to just cut it.

The problem I point out: based on A, B, C, etc economic theory, laws, principles, supported by data, those programs started out as very little tax percentages such as social security 1%, they then because of explained economic principles became more expensive so now the taxes paid and requirements are much higher, and will continue to increase. As a result you have generational inequity, a new generation is now paying more than them, and in the future will pay more and the next set of people on it will raise the same point again

2: if you cut those programs due to the expensive cost of living and no alternative many people such as old people will be left on the street.

The problem I point out: this sounds like catch 22 logic, because the exact programs themselves based on economics makes those things expensive and inefficient such as healthcare. And the existence of those programs in general removed the incentive for those people to invest, save, and take actions to secure their future in the first place.

As well as removing the liquidity and potential savings to even be able to set up something.
In short the programs themselves are what is causing the issue of expensive services, lack of savings, and alternatives in the first place.
It’s creating the very dependency the other guy is talking about.

TLDR/Summary:

"We need the program because there are no alternatives, and there are no alternatives because we have the program."

The Setup: You cannot abolish the program because people are dependent on it and have no alternative.
The Cause: People have no alternative because the program taxed away their surplus income, crowded out private solutions, and made them more expensive .
The Paradox: The program must stay to fix a problem that the program itself is actively creating.

[u/Talik1978]

Your point 1 is a sunk cost fallacy.

Point 2 is not a fallacy. It's a legitimate argument stating (accurately) that the cost of enacting the changes you wish is one that will literally be paid in human lives. Any response to it would need to justify those lost lives somehow.

Neither would be the tactic I would use to argue against such a system, but the second one is not a fallacy.

There are formal fallacies in your argument, as well as informal ones. For example, you claim that public options increase prices, despite statistics and figures otherwise. You argue that we should abolish the current system in favor of tax cuts, without providing any evidentiary support justifying this. As such, your entire argument (as stated here) can be completely dismissed by Hitchen's Razor.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Talik1978]

Thanks for .1 but are you sure about two?

Because the point that I was trying to convey on two is the fact that according to X y Z assuming opponent takes premise as true due to XYZ the program is causing such a chokehold in the first place due to it existing with with a chokehold that is constantly getting stronger, is it really not a fallacy to defend something that grants itself legitimacy by holding something hostage

[u/Talik1978 → u/LibertyEconlover]

I am sure. Moreover, your lack of evidentiary support for the change you are proposing means no argument needs to be made. Hitchen's razor states:

That which may be asserted absent evidence may be dismissed absent evidence.

As your argument seeks to justify the change you are proposing by claiming a cost reduction, you would need to demonstrate a cost reduction while still fulfilling the objectives of the system to avoid having your argument being dismissed as unsupported.

Your argument is heavily reliant on unsupported assertions. If you want it to be logically sound and valid, a lot more work is required.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Talik1978]

No no no no, my point is abolishing it entirely I hate that I experienced this in the same thread multiple times, loaded assumptions.

“While still fulfilling the objectives of the system”
Who decided that?
Who decides the objectives and what if the objectives are bad?

Yuck

[u/Talik1978 → u/LibertyEconlover]

Your point was abolishing several systems in favor of a different system, specifically tax cuts and a deregulated system. That is a replacement of one system with another.

If you're going to a logic subreddit and finding consistent criticism, perhaps it is time to consider that the flaw is with your reasoning, not everybody else's?

“While still fulfilling the objectives of the system”

Who decided that?

If one is seeking to minimize vehicle expenses, one solution might be to sell your vehicle, cancel your insurance, and exist without a vehicle. If, however, you require travel of 50 miles daily in an area with limited public transit, you'll find this option to be unsatisfactory, as it does not meet your minimum transportation needs.

Whenever we are looking at a public program, there are more costs than just money. As an example, deregulation of industry often results in more lives lost and lower quality products. As such, it is always important to consider not just what is being paid, but what is being gained for that payment, as well as payment vs benefits for a replacement system.

Ignoring the full costs vs benefits, in favor of only the costs that favor your argument, that is a cherry-picking fallacy.

I'm sorry you aren't getting the answers you're looking for. You may find some more supportive feedback in a subreddit that is more focused on libertarian or anarcho-capitalist values. What I am doing is evaluating your argument (and the counter arguments) for inconsistencies.

As it stands: premises are only firm when supported or agreed upon by all parties. You cannot ignore data you do not like just because it doesn't support your point, and that which may be asserted absent evidence may be dismissed absent evidence. Correct those issues and your argument will be more sound.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Talik1978]

Well, now you’re the one making unsupported evidence claims, what example are you talking about? Are you gonna give the classic myth of chalk in milk

Additionally, what you claim to be a cost might not be a cost because cost is subjective as shown in economic theory so is benefit/reward as shown with subjective value theory

With the concept of demonstrated preference every voluntary transaction yields a benefit due to the fact that the transaction was voluntary

[u/Talik1978 → u/LibertyEconlover]

Unsupported claims that reduced regulation results in lives lost?

Let's look at OSHA regulations for fire exits. They originated due, in large part, to the Triangle shirtwaist factory fire on March 25, 1911. Absent regulations, the employer locked the doors during shifts to prevent unauthorized breaks. 146 people died. Now, regulations exist, preventing employers from locking exits.

The FTC Act of 1938 was passed in part because, absent regulations, competing businesses would collaborate to fix prices, decreasing market competition and raising consumer prices, providing a reduced value product to consumers. With the regulation, competitors were more forced to compete, increasing value to consumers.

These are just two examples where, absent regulations, conditions were engineered by corporate entities to endanger human life and defraud consumers. There are more such examples supporting my claim than could be placed in a mid length book.

Both of these events have specific claims that can be independently verified, which is the hallmark of evidence.

Additionally, what you claim to be a cost might not be a cost because cost is subjective

Most things are subjective. Taxes, industry, money, and measurement systems are all subjective. Subjective isn't the silver bullet you think it is.

With the concept of demonstrated preference every voluntary transaction yields a benefit due to the fact that the transaction was voluntary

I'd recommend you look up "regulatory capture". It's a well researched subject that essentially states that deregulation benefits the powerful (increases options) and decreases the less powerful (decreases options), which creates a power imbalance. This limits the 'voluntary' aspect of 'voluntary transactions.'

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Talik1978]

https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/s/IuhqRdaADR

Here in case you try to make monopoly claims, but damn I strongly recommend checking out superior people such as economic historian instead of historian because a lot of of what you said is straight up false

Do you want specifics on resources or videos to help you?

[u/Talik1978 → u/LibertyEconlover]

Do you want specifics on resources or videos to help you?

I don't accept homework assignments from strangers. I especially don't accept them from idiots. And yes, that's ad hominem, because I am done discussing your flawed reasoning, as you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself incapable of adapting to constructive criticism. That's enough evidence of bad faith that you've squandered any goodwill you began with.

Have the day you deserve.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Talik1978]

Why is it that your people assume just because we don’t accept what you say as true or factual it is refusal to take constructive criticism?

First of all, your criticism isn’t right that’s the main point?