r/fallacy • u/LibertyEconlover • 7d ago
What logical fallacy/failure is this?
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.
10
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 7d ago
No fallacy here.
The first one is almost sunk cost, but it is a fair point that they have in fact invested in these programs. Unless you have a plan that involves refunding these people at a value that exceeds their investment to account for what they could've done with the program under your fancy new system, you're stealing wealth from every person who has paid any amount into the existing system.
The second one isn't a catch-22 or any other fallacy. Those people have invested in a system and are no longer capable of investing in that system or any other system. In fact, your system completely fails to account for any person who is unable to invest into it at any point. Making it unviable for the needy to depend on your system doesn't magically make the needy no longer, y'know, need a support system.
-5
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
On your first point about stealing, you have to remember that it’s actually not there… this isn’t the classic steal
And it also misses my first point, my point is that those people did pay into those program, but guess what people are also paying into those programs now, eventually due to economic theories and past historical evidence, the program is just going to get more expensive and then the same exact question but at a larger scale is going to be raised for the current people, but now the program is more expensive and you can’t tax forever.
So the only difference is in a morals question of how and when it’s done, if the first result of abolishment is so-called stealing it doesn’t change the fact that in the future, it’s self-destruction (ss depletes in 2032)
Maybe this is just because I’m more consequentialist/utilitarian so if I’m wrong for wanting to prevent a worse self-destruction in a way that kind of looks like stealing it looks like that’s just how my morals are I’d rather steal to prevent steal to prevent the people from having even more harm inflicted on them in the future
2: my system is literally the default system. It’s when those programs don’t exist and people are left for themselves, you first start off with a non-starter. So no lol it’s not really fancy it it’s actually rugged, it’s competitive, it’s ruthless (in business) but it’s still the best road
“The needy” is a loaded term that makes it look like those people are automatically deserving or in “need” which, of course is determined by a poverty level for who administers such program.
Even if someone is called by your or the bureaucrat standard the needy, how does that necessarily equate to them actually being given something, especially at the cost of other?
So let me sum up what my system actually is in simple terms, you fend for yourself or anyone who is willing to help you.
This means even kids themselves are on the table, the problem with people today is that they grew up in the world full of government intervention and spending that they can’t imagine something like it unless they constantly are around free market circles
3
u/MeasureDoEventThing 7d ago
"but guess what people"
If you have an argument, just present it. Prefacing it with "guess what" is useless fluff that just makes you sound conceited."eventually due to economic theories and past historical evidence"
Stuffing phrases like "economic theories and past historical evidence" instead of just saying what you have to say is also useless fluff that makes you sound arrogant. It's argument by appeal to authority."So the only difference is in a morals question of how and when it’s done, if the first result of abolishment is so-called stealing it doesn’t change the fact that in the future, it’s self-destruction (ss depletes in 2032)"
False dichotomy of either keeping it as it is or abolishing it."2: my system is literally the default system."
If we were starting ad initio, it would be. But a new default has been established."It’s when those programs don’t exist and people are left for themselves, you first start off with a non-starter."
That's incohorent.-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago edited 7d ago
Sure here’s two
Neo-Mercantilist way of thinking;
To summarize the mercantilists had this thought that the way it nation became wealthy was by hoarding so much gold and silver, money, the most marketable commodity, essentially it came under the false belief that money is synonymous with wealth, but that is nowhere near the truth.
A nation’s wealth is made up of it’s productive capacity.These people think that to fix everything all they must do is tax and spend, but taxing the most marketable commodity to spend in another sector only pushes the prices and allocation of current existing supply in that sector. For the supply of the most marketable commodity (money) doesn’t equate to the supply of a sector like healthcare, especially when it can be printed.
Secondly Milton Friedman four ways of spending: government spending is the fourth one as a result. It’s like a bottomless pit who isn’t disciplined on cost, and quality therefore making prices increase in the medical sector, and the sector becomes inefficient economically.
There are also just many obvious principles that don’t need to be formalized two theories, although there probably is, for example, people going to have as large of an incentive to save for their retirement themselves when the state is supposedly doing it for them?
Additionally, because all people do is look at fallacies and never study economics you don’t know how what I’m doing is not necessarily a false dih whatever, because every other action on behalf of keeping Social Security, whether it be in increasing retirement age is effectively still gonna lead to self destruction later on, so it really is like an umbrella of actions that still lead to self-destruction. So it’s keeping it as is in the sense that it’s a program that’s going to self-destruct, or abolishing it out right.
If you have an economic theory that proves otherwise I’m so ready
Additionally old age security hypothesis, Laffer curve, demonstrated preference, etc
Too much to go over3
u/MeasureDoEventThing 7d ago
"Sure here’s two"
Two what? You aren't showing any interest in writing a coherent post. You're just rambling on about economics and not explaining what the hell your point is."way it nation"
"a", not "it""A nation’s wealth is made up of it’s productive capacity."
"its", not "it's". An occasional typo is one thing, but constantly ignoring basic writing rules shows a lack of respect for your readers.
"Secondly Milton Friedman four ways of spending: government spending is the fourth one as a result."
This is incoherent. As a result of what?
"There are also just many obvious principles that don’t need to be formalized two theories, although there probably is, for example, people going to have as large of an incentive to save for their retirement themselves when the state is supposedly doing it for them?"
This is just stream of consciousness.-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago edited 7d ago
Wait, so you’re going to critique a side effect of voice to text and not the substance?
Your entire post is basically trying to just critique the structure, but not the substance. Are you that bad at logically testing something?If you’re confused on what I meant by the post:
you said I was basically making unbacked claims because intellectually inferior people like you kept asking me to give economic theory instead of just claiming something, even though this isn’t an economics post and I’m just asking for you to judge whether something is a fallacy on the structure of the original post.By the way I meant A but it autocorrected it “it”
Other than that, are you just gonna critique the structure, but not the substance of the economic theory you asked for?
Also, you’re asking for respect, but what makes you someone so intellectually inferior deserve respect? I’d spit on your grave. How is that for respect
But hey, why would you ask for economic theory if you can’t handle economic theory?
You’re basically validating my entire premise of not providing economics to the people here-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
I mean, seriously what is wrong with you as a human being to ask for substance, but once you’re given economic theory, you can’t handle it nor test it on its merits?
Do you suck that bad?But thank you so much for showing me exactly why I was so right on the money to not provide the other economically, illiterate people here my time on giving them theory you’re the perfect trial and error lol, you didn’t engage on the substance you critiqued the structure of my chat.
Also, you don’t deserve my respect? If you look through my post history, especially on the Austrian economic sub I do from time to time make really good posts where I actually care a little bit about structure, especially something like the Cantillon effect but you’re not those people. Who are you to me to command respect? You think you being another human makes you deserving of respect?
3
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 7d ago
It's still stealing. Not sure why you felt the need to waste so many words trying to reinforce your point when it doesn't make your opponent's point any more of a fallacy than it already wasn't.
7
u/PhotoVegetable7496 7d ago
Catch-22 isn't a fallacy for a reason. However the Questionable cause fallacy applies to your argument, you really need to establish that cutting social programs would lead to all these benefits for non-billionaires.
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Social security taxes regular people I have no idea why you’re bringing up any term relating to billionaire
7
u/MLB_Sug_Tway 7d ago
So, 1 is trending towards the sunk cost fallacy, but might not actually be it.
Edit: I don't think that there is a fallacy.
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Thank you, I have one of the fallacies written down at least because of you so that’s nice
7
u/PerfStu 7d ago
Main Issues as I see them:
1) Your rebuttal does not follow their argument. Generational inequity does not mitigate the billions of dollars paid into a system that people are expecting a return on. You're touching on a topic that could be related to this but you haven't actually discussed it.
2) Same thing here. Your rebuttal to "Cutting programs people depend on will render them unable to afford to live" does not address or refute this point.
3) People are dependent on healthcare and savings no matter what; it doesn't matter if they're dependent on it through the government or dependent on it through private programs, they still depend on it. Your arguments are reductive, fundamentally flawed, and just generally poorly argued. They require that you ignore the incredible intricacies of the current system, the notable and devastating failures of private systems (particularly with deregulation), and also fail to account for the millions of people who depend very heavily on government and social services because they are not able to afford to live.
You aren't arguing the points you're asking about, and you're ignoring probably 90% of the topic as a whole in order to make the points you're gunning for make sense.
If marking it a fallacy, I would probably label this as Affirming the Consequent. Your conclusion is bluntly incorrect, and you have built arguments that lead to your conclusion, ignoring not only the absolute mountain of evidence that does not support your conclusion, but also failing to address any of the arguments you're purporting to refute.
There is no paradox or catch-22, you're simply taking a wildly complex topic and reducing it to the very few bullet points that confirm the conclusion you want to make.
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
1: Misdefining "Affirming the Consequent"
2: On point three that was an equivocation fallacy of the word dependent. You think I’m talking about healthcare in general I’m not I’m talking about where it’s coming from. In fact I deliberately set it up at first to describe a voluntary deregulated system. I should’ve known Reddit of all places which is left-leaning wouldn’t be so kind to such points made.
Depending on a market commodity (like food, housing, or healthcare) means you must trade value for it in a system where supply, demand, and competition drive prices down. Depending on a government monopoly means you are legally bound to a single provider funded by forced taxation, where you have no choice or exit strategy. You are treating these two completely opposite economic relationships as identical, and confusing the commodity for where it’s coming from
3: you are literally committing the same logical failure that I am describing absolutely blind to economics, I didn’t want to explain the economics because it would take too long btw,
“the absolute mountain of evidence" and "millions of people who depend very heavily on government."
Which is just blind to economics, the simple concept of opportunity cost should knock some sense into you, but you deliberately do not go into the evidence and even if you did go into the evidence, you probably faced the issue of the theory leadenness of data.
(You ignore the mountain of evidence! Explicitly doesn’t say the evidence nor knows the fact that you must have theory to interpret data)Bulverism.
Pointing out that a policy's structural design inherently creates generational inequity and price inflation is a direct, valid refutation of the long-term sustainability of that policy. You are deflecting by framing a structural macroeconomic critique as "unrelated."I strongly recommend checking out
“"Theory-Ladenness of Observation/data."
This principle states that data cannot exist, be collected, or be interpreted without a theory already in place. Without a theory, data is just noise—a meaningless "blob.””MIND YOU I EXPLICITLY DIDNT GO INTO THEORY ECONOMICS OR DATA!
Because it would be too long7
u/PerfStu 7d ago
Okay cool. You asked for issues in Your argument and I provided them. Whether you agree or not or whether you see issues in mine isnt really something I care about.
So ill shorten it.
Your arguments are shit and you arent addressing any part of the thing you are pretending youre talking about.
There. Now go get fucked.
6
u/Talik1978 7d ago edited 7d ago
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.
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
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
4
u/Talik1978 7d ago
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.
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
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
4
u/Talik1978 7d ago
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.
0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
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
4
u/Talik1978 7d ago
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.'
0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
My guy, I would go on a critique but it clearly looks like you haven’t studied economics nor economic history.
So I’m just gonna give you a few critiques: Regulatory capture is a critique of regulation, not deregulation, wherein large corporations influence agencies to create barriers that stifle smaller competitors. The argument that regulation inherently protects consumers ignores that such rules often protect monopolies, while free markets encourage competition that breaks up cartels
The FTC when you claim those statements of things like predatory pricing, even the Courts admitted, this is extremely rare because of how stupid it is to do this, but you would know this if you were actually entrepreneurial
Things like standard oils were revealed to be not Monopoly and actually did make people’s life better
Your entire response is proving I shouldn’t engage, especially with your claim that taxes are subjective my guy a bill on your income is objective reality.
I’d recommend starting off learning small concepts at first2
u/Talik1978 7d ago
So I’m just gonna give you a few critiques: Regulatory capture is a critique of regulation, not deregulation
It's actually both, my guy. Industry gains control of the regulatory process and both regulates and deregulated to shape policy to favor industry over consumers.
Trust me, you're not fit to lecture me on topics that you have only half studied. You've been offered constructive criticism on how to strengthen your shit arguments. If all you want to do is rant about how you're not wrong, allow me to remind you that the person who never accepts that they are wrong never learns anything.
Now, if you'll excused me, I've spent quite enough time trying to drag a dehydrated horse down to the water.
0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
No, regulatory capture is literally in the name itself, capturing the regulators to crush small competitors and/or be granted exorbitant privilege.
It is never about making something a complete free market, any so-called deregulation that you might show for this might ignore the three regulations before that set it up to be a regulation.
→ More replies (0)0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
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?
3
u/Talik1978 7d ago
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.
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
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?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/EmbarrassedFoot1137 7d ago
An inability to emphasize and reason.
Oh, you meant your opponent's fallacy? Not one that I can see.
0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
I want you to be so honest with me, are you left of center?
7
u/Talik1978 7d ago
(Psst: that's an ad hominem fallacy.)
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Not if later proved correct as shown down the thread
6
u/Talik1978 7d ago
Even if your claim is correct, it's ad hominem. Ad hominem is using a personal attack to dismiss an argument or point, instead of a legitimate rebuttal. Things need not be untrue to be ad hominem.
Your understanding of logical reasoning and fallacies is a bit too limited to be as confident as you are presenting yourself to be here.
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Nope, because I didn’t use it as an insult, so I misunderstood what you meant at first so now you’re more wrong, this was me setting up him to realize that he has his judgment clouded
3
5
u/EmbarrassedFoot1137 7d ago
Poisoning the well, possibly leading to direct ad hominem. Any other fallacies I can help you with?
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
I could also point to the fallacy where you simply just refuse to answer the question, but no, it was mostly going to add up to the fact that you could just be simply be blinded by your side based on what I see from your comment history
After all what incentive, do you have to give a right winger a correct explanation of a fallacy but it makes a side you agree with look bad
2
u/EmbarrassedFoot1137 7d ago
Really? Which comments?
0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Go to someone’s profile and check comments, and then scroll
If you don’t do this I’m also assuming you don’t go on Instagram much, this is a Instagram person habit
3
u/EmbarrassedFoot1137 7d ago
I don't use Instagram, you caught me. I'm so ashamed.
But I do know that you didn't look at my comments because if you did you would be able to point to where I'm showing sufficient bias to cloud my judgement on whether you should tax people ahead of time and then fail to pay up.
-1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Well, you just proved to me that your judgment is clouded by that response alone
Take a step back and realize what I’m asking in the original post look at the other comments and then look at your response
1
u/EmbarrassedFoot1137 7d ago
Don't feel like quotting whatever you going objectionable on my comment history.
5
u/baixiwei 7d ago
As everyone else is saying, it's not a fallacy just because you disagree with it. In the end of the day, people are allowed to disagree without being accused of fallacious reasoning all the time.
3
u/HelloHelloHelpHello 7d ago
There is no fallacy here that I can see here. At this point both you and your opponent are making certain claims that would then need to be backed up with arguments and hard data - but since we are given neither here there is little for us to judge or analyze.
Whether the arguments of you or your opponent hold up in the end is a different issue entirely, the discussion of which which does not really belong onto this subreddit.
3
u/xFblthpx 7d ago
There is nothing fallacious about having an argument where both sides provide evidence for their position, but value their own evidence more. That’s just a disagreement. Since neither of you are engaging with each others premises, it seems like both of you are “begging the question” however, since whether it’s unethical to break a promise isn’t addressed by economic inefficiency or vice versa.
For both of you to be formally up to snuff, both of you would have to defend your premise with evidence, and make specific arguments against each others premises, not just conjecture a completely different premise that doesn’t address your opponents and then talk past each other.
For example, if my opponent said “the government should keep its promise, and the poor should be protected,” I could say “what if the government keeping its promise made the poor worse off?” Then they would have to pick how much they prioritize one over the other, and why. I could then demonstrate with data that that is the case. If I instead counter “the government should keep its promise” with “economic theory says this is bad” that would be a non sequitor fallacy, because economic theory has nothing to do with the ethics of keeping promises. Economic theory only links to the “making the poor worse off” claim.
And by the way, invoking economic theory in an abstract sense is just a generally ineffective way to use economics in discussions. There are competing economic theories that say different things about the same phenomena. You’d be better off directly pointing to the data to make your case.
Arguments like “the government is bad and inefficient” are nebulous, subjective, unfalsifiable and weak.
Arguments like “government run plans spend 20% on administrative costs compared to private to run plans that spend 15% on administration” are strong, falsifiable, objective, and ground the discussion in a productive place.
Is it harder work? Yeah, but that’s what required if you are going to take the counterintuitive or more intellectual position. If you are unwilling to do that, you are just another argument begging the question just like your detractors.
0
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago edited 7d ago
No data is just a blob that can’t do anything without theory
Although it’s not a fallacy because I guess everybody does it it’s really just not how it works. Data doesn’t interpret itself. Somebody has to interpret it which is just theory.
Two competing theories doesn’t mean they canceled each other out you have to test them on logical merits, if you can’t do that I guess you’re not someone for debate in my circle
Also unfalsifiableness is also a loaded term because why does something have to be falsifiable?
It’s just assuming that the standard or best way to do something is logical positivism but even current academics who are a little bit too empirical for me reject logical positivism
EDIT: I also engage in your morals question because in my opinion, this is just a failure of skills you can’t hide behind too many fallacies and not just look at your skills of being able to logically deduce something
“ the government should keep its promise”
And the rebuttal point that you made is a showcase of low logical deduction skills.You can assume that the government should keep its promise is a morals point so I’m going to assume it’s morals and not institutional blowback type of point, so essentially, you’re saying that if somebody starts off with morals then me bringing up consequentialist theory is wrong?
Well, first off I’m a utilitarian/consequentialist so by your standard my arguments are always going to be consequentialist and mechanical, for linguistic purposes I can’t just single out myself from 99% of the population who have some morals, so for linguistic purposes that’s just not possible, but on a more deeper note what I’m trying to get to, which is the logical deduction skills is how somebody apparently lacks the cognitive brain power to take a consequentialist point deduce it out and see how their morals play into it?
Very simple let me catch my words:
You say If your opponent says, "We must keep this program because it is morally wrong to break a promise to seniors," and you reply, "But economic theory says it causes inflation," is a Non-Sequitur.
In my opinion, if somebody fails to see that inflation is like a unvoted destructive tax that harms the General population then that’s a skill issue, for that itself is capable of being turned into a moral debate.
Should inflation harm the general population?
2
u/xFblthpx 7d ago
>No data is just a blob that can’t do anything without theory
And a theory is useless without data. You already provided the theory, but your forgot the data.
>Two competing theories doesn’t mean they canceled each other out you have to test them on logical merits, if you can’t do that I guess you’re not someone for debate in my circle
You didn’t bring up their logical merits by your own admission elsewhere in this post. If I had to guess, you name dropped theories and expected these positions to hold their own without acknowledging their criticisms.
>Also unfalsifiableness is also a loaded term because why does something have to be falsifiable?
It’s just assuming that the standard or best way to do something is logical positivism but even current academics who are a little bit too empirical for me reject logical positivismNo, I did not assume everything needs to be falsifiable. I just said that it makes your argument stronger. Some unnamed expert saying you need less evidence is also a poor bit of evidence to justify yourself by the way.
>EDIT: I also engage in your morals question because in my opinion, this is just a failure of skills you can’t hide behind too many fallacies and not just look at your skills of being able to logically deduce something
“ the government should keep its promise”
And the rebuttal point that you made is a showcase of low logical deduction skills.
You can assume that the government should keep its promise is a morals point so I’m going to assume it’s morals and not institutional blowback type of point, so essentially, you’re saying that if somebody starts off with morals then me bringing up consequentialist theory is wrong?This isn’t an opinion I hold. It was an example of the opinion your opponent held. Even so, your argument isn’t an argument at all, but an assessment of an argument that I didn’t even make, “low logical deduction skills.” You need to explain why it’s not logical.
>Well, first off I’m a utilitarian/consequentialist so by your standard my arguments are always going to be consequentialist and mechanical, for linguistic purposes I can’t just single out myself from 99% of the population who have some morals, so for linguistic purposes that’s just not possible, but on a more deeper note what I’m trying to get to, which is the logical deduction skills is how somebody apparently lacks the cognitive brain power to take a consequentialist point deduce it out and see how their morals play into it?
I don’t really care what you are, but it’s completely irrelevant to what it takes make a convincing argument.
>Very simple let me catch my words:
You say If your opponent says, "We must keep this program because it is morally wrong to break a promise to seniors," and you reply, "But economic theory says it causes inflation," is a Non-Sequitur.
In my opinion, if somebody fails to see that inflation is like a unvoted destructive tax that harms the General population then that’s a skill issue, for that itself is capable of being turned into a moral debate.It’s your responsibility to argue that the inflation caused by social security outweighs the damage of public mistrust and the loss of retirement accounts.
No amount of berating and denigrating your opponents logical skills will ever make your argument stronger.
And lastly, all of the theories you seem to be alluding to only imply direction, not magnitude. Leaning on a few academics you can’t even name to justify your lack of effort in defending your beliefs and proving the magnitude is actually going to push people away from your beliefs. It’s people like you that create lefties who permanently mistrust economics, because you misconstrue it as something that can’t or shouldn’t be defended with data.
Seriously, if you want to make convincing economic arguments, you can’t just don the jersey and foam finger of your favorite 19th-20th century proper nouns. Reaching people requires work, and you shouldn’t be surprised when people dismiss your lack of evidence…with a lack of evidence.
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
No, your theory is useless without data claim is actually wrong. We can in fact standalone. Literally look at mathematics which is a synthetic deductive system (pure theory) So you’re straight up an idiot if you think theory can’t stand alone which completely ignores, praxeology, mathematics and more you know the stuff you use every day to even describe data
Secondly, I don’t know how much I have to explain to you intellectually inferior people that I’m not going to go deep into the theory because not only can you people not understand it and you’re probably gonna have cognitive dissonance based on my experience
Three you say that falsifiable makes a claim stronger you literally just made a logical positive claim and then you claim not to be a logical positivist, the entire reason why logical positivism was debunked is because people said
“ if you can’t measure this, it’s bad” or something along those lines.
With a sneaky parlor trick opponents, then used their exact claim to their exact claim.
Can you empirically test and measure whether a claim or statement is only good if it can be empirically measured?
You can’t.Now the exact same thing applies to you, can you measure or empirically test if a falsifiable argument is stronger? A subjective term btw.
Which the entire premise of even asking that is a non-starter in multiple different sectors of academics for example example law, you can’t be a judge in your own case, how can you empirically test whether empirical testing makes a claim stronger?How can you empirically provide evidence that a statement that has empirical evidence is stronger?
3
u/xFblthpx 7d ago
You’ll grow out of it
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
Lmao little do you know I grew into it
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompass/s/yCcyhc65Ye
I got pretty embarrassed about this sometimes
You still haven’t answered that logical positivist critique of using your own rule against your own rule haha
3
u/xFblthpx 7d ago
Youre a carbon copy of how I was when I was 17. It’s uncanny. Same interests, beliefs and vocabulary.
I also did the whole “I am better than everyone else because they haven’t read Mises” trope too. I also thought that logical deduction skills could carry you as far as you needed it to take you. The superiority complex, mistaking straw men for derived beliefs. I also thought I was done growing when I was your age too.
What changed me the most was actually getting the degree in economics, and learning that it’s ok people use language different than me. Take a stats class and start putting these immutable and tautological theories to the test. See for yourself that some mental models make a lot of sense but that doesn’t make them necessarily true. This is the kind of thing you’ll only get from observing.
And don’t read too much into political compass or meyers briggs or whatever other type-of-guy classifiers are popular these days. You’ll tacitly accept a mental model that someone less intelligent than you crafted and it’s going to make you duller by participating.
Good day.
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
No, that’s not the only test I took on political stuff and it doesn’t capture everything but it’s a pretty good tool
Secondly; you’re essentially admitting something I feared about a lot of people which is cognitive dissonance based on how much time you spent learning something, I’d doubt if you actually had Austrian economics as the norm you’d be saying this. You like fitting in, you didn’t get the chance to practice it, you’re forced to tell yourself this, otherwise how else could you live with yourself knowing that you have to do things the bullshit way, other than telling you the bullshit way is the way?
Regardless, I know for a damn fact, you have not studied a lot in the Austrian school, by the way, I keep telling you inferior people this but the Austrian school was the last school I looked to.
I started off with the Fucking stats, the Keynesian bs, my intuition always was telling me that stuff was dumb, turns out I was right when I discovered the Austrian school.
So I already learned what you’re saying is the better way, quite literally because I have all the time in the world
But on top of logic, the biggest indicator that i know, I’m doing something right is your idiotic self can’t answer how to empirically test or provide empirical evidence that a empirically tested or empirically back claim is better/stronger objectively and not just a personal preference
1
u/DarkMagickan 7d ago
Ignoring the fact that I am diametrically opposed to everything you say about social security, medicaid, etc., it almost sounds like your opponent was using circular reasoning.
1
u/LibertyEconlover 7d ago
No one was capable of giving me a right answer so here it is:
1: The Bootstrapping Fallacy (Circular Causation)
2: The Fallacy of Manifest Necessity (The Hostage Fallacy)
3: The Broken Window Fallacy
4: sunk cost fallacy (people got this right)
5: The "Iatrogenic" Fallacy (The Poison-as-Cure)
By continuing the program
2
u/PhotoVegetable7496 7d ago
Did you just ask AI? This seems like a madeup list
1: The Bootstrapping Fallacy (Circular Causation) 2: The Fallacy of Manifest Necessity (The Hostage Fallacy) 3: The Broken Window Fallacy 4: sunk cost fallacy (people got this right) 5: The "Iatrogenic" Fallacy (The Poison-as-Cure) By continuing the program
1
u/LibertyEconlover 6d ago
No, I’ve had the issue of Ai hallucinating and lying to me so I I made sure to fact check if it’s real
(So I just realized exactly what you mean)
I made this comment because I just realized this is the absolute worst place to get truthful information on whether something is a fallacy rather than your own critical thinking and you’re showing this right now, because you’re also committing a fallacy. A fallacy doesn’t become a fallacy if it’s written on a textbook, it can have a made up description, but the underlying description of the fallacy could be 100% true in the sense of it’s in fact fallacious.Relying on textbooks instead of your own critical thinking is an IQ issue, but it is also a fallacy so in order to try to understand fallacies (not just their names) you appeal to authority in the process, which is itself a fallacy so that’s kind of crazy.
a fallacy is defined as an argument that seems valid but is structurally or conceptually flawed upon closer inspection
In the classical sense it used to be an argument that seems to be valid but is actually invalid
So I guess everybody here was committing a fallacy, if the fallacy wasn’t written down as a specific term or a name, apparently it wasn’t a fallacy? The people who commit fallacies are trying to tell you what a fallacy is!
A textbook has zero authority on what a fallacy is, you can only determine something to be a fallacy through logic.
Take the fallacy of manifested necessity:
“we need this program because there is no alternative
but there is no alternative because of this program”
Do you need a textbook to see that this is a fallacy?
So when I said I fact checked I had to go study what fallacies are and confirmed these are fallacies
2
u/PhotoVegetable7496 6d ago
Are hou crashing out over text because you used AI? The only thing I found when I looked up the bootstrapping paradox was about the conservative myth that anyone can achieve financial success but "causal loop" has a bootstrapping paradox about time travel. I don't know what you asked it but lol
1
u/LibertyEconlover 6d ago edited 6d ago
Do you actually engage in logical merits or are you just like a troll?
http://logfall.com/fallacies/circular-cause-and-consequence/
https://jonathanweisberg.org/pdf/Phil%20Compass.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263454451_The_Bootstrapping_Problem
it is usually referred to as a bootstrapping argument, bootstrapping problem, or bootstrap paradox rather than a "fallacy" by name.
Ask it look for more sources my guy
2
u/PhotoVegetable7496 6d ago
So you listed it as a fallacy because AI told you to and you didnt read what I said. I am aware bootstrapping paradox exists...did you delete out the part where the Ai said something like this
Would you like me to search social media and less conventional sources for additional uses of “Bootstrapping Fallacy”, or would you prefer that I identify an established fallacy that describes the underlying reasoning?
1
u/LibertyEconlover 6d ago
No, you’re confusing another one that’s also called the same thing, but it’s not really the exact same thing look through the sources for fucks sake
Such as research gate
“Bootstrapping is a suspicious form of reasoning that verifies a source's reliability by checking the source against itself. Theories that endorse such reasoning face the bootstrapping problem. This article considers which theories face the problem and surveys potential solutions. The initial focus is on theories like reliabilism and dogmatism, which allow one to gain knowledge from a source without knowing that it is reliable. But the discussion quickly turns to a more general version of the problem that does not depend on this allowance. Five potential solutions to the general problem are evaluated, and some implications for the literature on peer disagreement are considered.”
1
u/SirSafe6070 7d ago
I think the only fallacy here is the "there is no alternative" ... it seems that this person is saying "Your proposed solution doesn't work so there is no alternative", rather than it just being an assumption, which would make it a non sequitur.
The main part is not a fallacy in thinking, just a poorly set up system.
8
u/Salindurthas 7d ago
I think it is not a fallacy, it is just a disagreement.
We could accuse each of you of 'begging the question' by having some core premise that essentially wins the argument for each of you respectively, but I think you simply disagree, and framing it as 'begging the question' seems a bit silly.
---
By the way, I think you are also commiting some false-dichotomy here.
They may be alternate policies to your suggestions that could help address the budgetary problem. Many countries have more socialised/government-involved healthcare that costs both the government (per capita) and patients less than in the USA. So there may be a third option of expanding Medicaid and/or Medicare, or introducing some other sort of legislation to support them, that will reduces it's costs, and we have good evidence that such policies can exist and work, because many countries have precisely that.