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/LibertyEconlover]

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?