What fallacy is this?

Economics Political Theory
21

Since we’re naming logical fallacies, could someone help me label what the following would be called?

I was arguing with a fellow student a few weeks ago about whether or not World War II ended the Great Depression, and whether wars in general help the economy. I explained to him how wartime spending diverts resources from the private market where consumer demands are being met to the public “war sector” where they’ll be used to build tanks and airplanes and the like. The debate got to the point where he began to decry economics itself, flatly saying something along the lines of, “Economics is just a bunch of loosely-constructed theories which are purely opinionative.” I’m not really sure how you handle something like that in a debate setting. When your opponent completely shuts himself off to logic, what more can you do? But regardless, would that be an argument from ignorance or an irrelevant conclusion?

22

“Economics is just a bunch of loosely-constructed theories which are purely opinionative.”

Sounds to me like this could stem from a Hasty Generalization ultimately leading to a Bare Assertion as mentioned earlier if he’s dismissing all of economics because he just says they are opinionated without proving why and how they lead to false conclusions. This also sounds like it could be close to a Argument From Fallacy, here is the general form**:**

If P, then Q. P is a fallacious argument. Therefore, Q is false.

Sounds like he’s equating the fact that because the theories are opinionated then your conclusions are false.

In this case is it really worth it to keep trying with someone who doesn’t appeal to logic? Would anything you say even change his mind at this point? If he’s just being stubborn or he was angry at the time and just shut down maybe after several conversations and with you showing him some sources he will at least change his mind about a couple things. If I were you I would start citing sources as I’ve noticed people who don’t appeal to logic will at least appeal to some sources.

23

said it before and i’ll say it again: chop to the throat.

no, but seriously… tell him he’s right.

that the allocation of resources on every scale is subjective and therefore “people’s opinionated theories”, but outcomes are quite objective (ie: dilluting the value of money makes it worth less, increased cost means decreased consumption, etc). what is economics, but the observation of this?

that might be the next step for his knowledge, seeing as he obviously thinks there are just selfish, dumb, irresponsable opinions in mainstream economics that from time to time might apply to him…

24

sorry, can’t give one right now. I just wanted to point out that even ancaps sometimes flow into fallacy land, they are not somehow unique or perfect :slight_smile:

25

But sir, WW2 definitely ended great depression. Those who were depressed were simply killed.

26

In my experiences in debating economics online, I often see people begin a narrative in the middle or in a contextual vacuum, and then declare victory because others cannot address their assertions as presented. It’s a very disingenuous tactic consisting of context dropping and question begging. If you find yourself in this situation then focus on the form of the argument and don’t get distracted with the particulars.

27

this just happened to my once again right now.. on YT… god

If I say black is black their response is: NO IT"S NOT.

wat..

28

And yet, you can’t give me a single example that demonstrates your point.

29

“this just happened to my once again right now.. on YT… god”

Was the debate about economics? If so I’ll jump in. :smiley:

30

Well, it was about the state in general. But I succeeded (I think). He admited finally that state puts you in jail if you don’t pay taxes… That means he admits (even if he deny this in comments) that state and mafia are very similar organizations. I invited him to mises.org, so maybe he will come up..if he got balls, lol.

the video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmq9Fzx-N_8

31

Broken window fallacy and correlation is causation.

32

(I know this wasn’t about counter-arguments, friend, but I’ve a feeling my brain will thank me for doing this out of fun:)

– “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)

(How would they continue to grow their company if they spend so much on security? Why would private security personnel continue to work for them when they’re tyrants? What’s stopping me from putting a bullet in one of them when they go outdoors? Who’s buying anything from them?)

– “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)

(Monopolize the field with money? I thought they needed customers… And there’s a broad assumption that someone working for the company would not quit under these circumstances. What if they were offered more by a rival?)

– “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)

(Who said anything about a lawsuit? I’ll just shoot you if you try to take my stuff. People will only come after me if they think I’ve done wrong in a free society. I just have to make sure it’s justifiable or I may get a bullet myself, from some angry relative. Or I may have to shoot that angry relative when they come after me. Sure, there could be a private court system, but when you can protect yourself it is more likely that law suits won’t crop up too often. In less extreme cases, like car accidents, I don’t even have to worry. I could buy insurance if I am worried, and likewise that person will have trouble getting insurance. If he likes driving around without insurance…well, he just totaled his ride, so have fun with that, buddy. I’m covered.)

– “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)

(Well, shouldn’t they be punished the same? The system we have now does that, if not moreso. At least the same person won’t be arrested for buying Sudafed to relieve his headache from thinking about the fine. And besides, where would such a fine be? More likely people will invest in protecting their stuff from thieves.)

33

Three days ago you were asked for examples and/or sources to back up this assertion. So far, you have failed to proved any. I don’t see how this could be accidental.

Next time, troll harder.