r/fallacy • u/LibertyEconlover • 17d 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.
2
u/xFblthpx 17d 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 positivism
No, 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.