I have heard these kinds of arguments now many times when I engage in debates about free societies vs statism. The other person will build up some fanciful story about how something would work in a free society, crush his own image and then use that as proof that a free society wouldn’t work. It makes my blood boil as it sidesteps all logical discourse but what I am more curious about is what kind of fallacy is that?
Examples I’ve actually heard:
– “In a free market two drug dealing companies could have billions of dollars to buy out all the private security forces and become a tyrannical force on the land” (Argument for why private security companies wouldn’t work)
– “In a free market one private security company with billions of dollars would be able to monopolize the field and become tyrannical” (Another argument against private security)
– “With a private court system I could refuse to enter a law suit with any judge that you pick, perpetually, and even if I enter a law suit and a punishment is made I could just walk away and no one could stop me” (Argument against free courts where without the State somehow private companies would either be too biased or would not be able to enforce laws)
– “With a private court system, let’s say the penalty for theft is always an $X.XX fine, the person who steals to feed his family would be unjustly punished the same as someone who robbed a bank out of greed” (Argument against private law systems)
Now, it was fairly easy for me to destroy these terrible arguments so I’m not as much looking for counterarguments as much as the type of fallacy that I keep observing over and over. Some fancy scenario is set up and then proven to be ridiculous then that is used as a sound repudiation of a free market system. Which kind of fallacy is that? “Slippery Slope” or “Argument from Ignorance”? (or some other one?).
Also, in the course of your guys’ debates have you commonly heard these arguments as well? I’ve noticed it’s a common theme in my own debates. Thanks for your time
Thanks, I once took a course in college and learned all of these and since forgotten them. Now I’m back to learning again since they’ve actually become relevant. I swore I thought I looked up that one already and the description didn’t match what I had in mind. I guess I’m just losing it. Thanks again!
Straw man means you made up your own argument and then dismantled it, acting as if it refutes your opponents position. If those are fallacies, that’s what I would think they are.
“Straw man means you made up your own argument and then dismantled it, acting as if it refutes your opponents position. If those are fallacies, that’s what I would think they are.”
It’s the most common strategy (fallacy) employed against my views whenever I engage in these debates. Is it the same for you?
Nobody claimed that the disagreement itself is a fallacy. But the argument being made to substantiate the conclusion contains logical fallacies. Look up logical fallacies.
No, they do not state verbally this perfect solution, they simply imply it, or keep in their mind while asserting their absurd situations (gang wars etc.)
Maybe it’s not exactly NF, but more expanded one so to speak.
Again, that’s how I approach it at least. When you ask them “give me your perfect solution” they are stuck. When you ask for evidence they are stuck. When you say, that just because something is not perfect doesn’t mean it is false, they are stuck.
And then they usually try to escape this dilemma with “lesser of two evils” card.
"No, they do not state verbally this perfect solution, they simply imply it, or keep in their mind while asserting their absurd situations (gang wars etc.)
Maybe it’s not exactly NF, but more expanded one so to speak.
Again, that’s how I approach it at least. When you ask them “give me your perfect solution” they are stuck. When you ask for evidence they are stuck. When you say, that just because something is not perfect doesn’t mean it is false, they are stuck.
And then they usually try to escape this dilemma with “lesser of two evils” card."
I can see how the bare assertion fallacy is more descriptive of these cases than the NF. The premise is always assumed to be true, even though absurd. They just blurt out a scenario that may in fact never happen (and never prove that it can), and then arrive at some other conclusion that makes a claim about my own view. The Wiki page states NF is about comparing actual things with unrealistic alternatives. Where in these cases we are comparing two different theoretical scenarios and arguing about the validity of the overarching concept.
The last part you said is true from my experiences.
“These are not really fallacies, they are just confusions about the nature of economics.”
I figured these would be fallacies because they are intentionally setting up an argument in their favor in order to disprove me. It’s not like they are just asking me how something works or asking me what my viewpoint is, before they even hear me out they jump into disproving my claims on shaky logical grounds. That’s not a fallacy?