Fierce debate with a friend - need help

[John_James]

@caulds989

His exact words -“if we hadnt of bailed out the banks we wouldn’t have ‘lasted the winter’. Everyone would have woken up with their bank accounts gone. Almost no one would have had any money and the economy would have been irreparable”

And of course, I’m sure he offered evidence/supporting arguments for this bare assertion.

The detox will kill the heroin addict. Better to give him more heroin now and let him die in bliss from an overdose, than to let him die now in utter pain and suffering.

If this guy thinks a hyperinflationary depression is “bliss”, he’s either completely ignorant, or completely stupid. Have him read some of these.

He then proceeded to say some nonsense about how China would then have gotten ahead of us and then somehow controlled the world.

Mercantilist nonsense. Again, “what hard evidence do you have”? What anything does he have?

What specific evidence do we have that this would not be the case (that our economy would not have been irreparable).

Well. First of all, it’s not on you to prove him wrong. He’s the one advocating intervention and the initiation of force. He’s the one advocating something. The onus is on him to prove his assertion…or at least support it…which he hasn’t even done that.

You’ll notice this is a common tactic of people touting nonsense. They have no way to back up anything they say, because

1. they’re largely ignorant

2. their theory is based almost entirely on fallacy

So you’ll find they have nothing to offer other than bare assertions. And if they’re smart, they’ll be sure to spout these assertions as if they are common fact. This is how people like Bill Maher gain a following. They simply repeat the nonsense people would like to believe, but with a tone of authority that reassures people that they’re right because obviously this guy is smart, and he is presenting these claims as if they are obvious.

And then when you question them on this, they attempt to flip the burden of proof on you…essentially making a ton of claims and then insisting it’s on you to prove them wrong. See “argument from ignorance” and “burden of proof”. (For more on people like Maher, see here).

But if you’d like some support for the Austrian side, see here, and here. (Those are geared more as explanations of how things came about, but the resources provided also help explain why the proper course of action is the proper one.)