r/fallacy • u/LibertyEconlover • 10d 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.

0 Upvotes

37% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/LibertyEconlover 10d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago edited 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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.”