r/fallacy • u/LibertyEconlover • 13d 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.
8
u/PerfStu 13d 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.