Gyroscopic Investing

I don't mean to generalize, and I'm writing this as a discussion starter rather than a "blog post"/"article of fact" because I don't know if this is true. Purely speculation that I want to explore.

I purport that Liberals use the logic of "I'm a reasonable person, and I wouldn't do X action in Y situation, therefore no one should do X in Y situation. Because if someone does Z action in Y situation then either they are wrong, because they disagree with me, or I am wrong because I disagree with them, and cognitive dissonance doesn't let me think I might be wrong, therefore they are wrong to do Z."

I'll give some specifics:

WELFARE

Libertarians purport welfare incentivizes poor people to have more babies because they get paid a higher paycheck depending on how many kids they have. Thus, we want to get rid of government welfare because we feel it's incentivizing the wrong behavior. It's not economically target efficient in that it causes people to perform the behavior we are trying to mitigate.

Liberals argue that cutting welfare would be disastrous to the poor and argue "well if you paid *ME* $200/month for each additional child *I* had, *I* wouldn't respond to that as an incentive, because *I* already have 3 kids and my hands are full with them. Therefore *NO ONE* would have more kids just to qualify for increased welfare checks, because I'm a reasonable person and wouldn't do it, and most people are reasonable, so most people won't do it."

SECOND AMENDMENT - AGAINST TYRANNY

Libertarians argue that it's the duty of citizens to bear arms to both deter a government from becoming tyrannical, and to prepare for combat against their own government, should it become tyrannical.

Liberals disagree because "violence never solves anything, and *I* wouldn't pick up a gun to fight the military, regardless of how tyrannical they are. *I* have no training in guns and the military would instantly kill *ME* and even if I wanted to *I* wouldn't do any good standing up against the government, therefore *NO ONE* should. Because if any civilians do have training and take up arms against a tyrannical government, and *I* don't assist, then *I* would be a coward relative to those people and *I* don't want to be a coward, so *NO ONE* should take up arms against the government should they become tyrannical."

SECOND AMENDMENT - SELF DEFENSE

Libertarians argue that the only thing that beats a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Liberals argue "*I* don't want to have a gun because guns are dangerous and *I* get mad during traffic and *I* might pull out my gun and shoot someone while *I* am mad and *I* am a reasonable person, so most people would get mad enough during rush hour to shoot someone so *NO ONE * should have a gun because people are inherently emotional and susceptible to flipping out because *I* am. Additionally *I* don't want to go to the gun range every few weeks to train and *I* don't want to modify my wardrobe to conceal a firearm and *I* don't want to risk shooting the wrong person so *NO ONE* should carry a gun except for police because *I* am a reasonable person and this is my belief so anyone who disagrees is not reasonable."

UNEMPLOYMENT

Libertarians argue that 99 weeks of funemployment is ridiculous and incentivizes people to not work. Because why go to work if every $1 you earn at work is $1 less of free funemployment money. And funemployment money isn't hit with 7.5% FICA tax and you don't have to expend gasoline to drive anywhere, you can just stay home for 2 years and get paid not to work.

Liberals argue "*I* would be bored as hell if I stayed home unemployed, so I would go out looking for a job. And if I couldn't find one, I'd feel blessed the government is helping me out. *I* will bust my ass looking for a new job, even if it means no additional income relative to unemployment because *I* have a work ethic and would be bored sitting around watching TV all day, and *I* am a reasonable person so most people would fall in line with my believes, thus if anyone is collecting unemployment, it's because they truly need it."

SUMMARY

In closing, my argument is that Liberals believe themselves to be correct, reasonable, and possibly morally superior to others. Thus, whatever a Liberal believes to be true, they feel the opposite is unreasonable and unnecessary.

This isn't a bash against only Liberals. I'd argue that conservatives feel exactly the same way but in the opposite direction on many issues.

The beauty of libertarianism is we don't suppose to know what's best for everyone. If you want to carry a gun and will do so responsibly, go for it. If you don't want to carry a gun, that's OK too.

Curious to hear thoughts. Also, for anyone who's an expert in Logical Fallacies, did I just nail one of them? If so, what's the technical term for the one I used in this post?

Not sure if you've discovered a new category of fallacy per se....I would say (disclaimer: I do NOT claim to be an expert on logical fallacies) that the fallacy you have identified is basically an example of "unrepresentative sample" (or  "biased sample" modified by "hasty generalization." You (or actually your assumed liberal opponent since you were assuming their voice in your post) basically:

A. Picked an unrepresentative sample (one person...themselves...with a sample set of one you can pretty much "prove" anything; plus, they are NOT representative of everyone because everyone else has different goals, ideas, thoughts, morals, preference for consumption vs leisure, etc)

and then

B. Made a hasty generalization based on how that one unrepresentative sample (himself...too small of a sample size to reach any meaningful conclusion) would have hypothetically behaved.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ation.html

Simonjester wrote: it is also some times called, argument by generalization drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. (The cases may be unrepresentative because of Selective Observation.)

I think everyone does this kind of stuff. Example:

"I'm a rational libertarian who loves choice and would gladly browse hundreds of products to find the one that is perfectly suited to my needs, and I'm a pretty average reasonable person, therefore everyone would benefit from increasing the amount of choice available because everyone is like me and enjoys the process of narrowing down what's perfect for them and nobody gets frustrated or overwhelmed by too much choice because I sure never have! All those liberals who talk about poor people being overwhelmed by too much choice are just insulting them because I know for a fact that everyone is just like me and loves to find the needle of the perfect product in the haystack of the marketplace."

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, no matter what size and shape that those birds and their preferences may come in.

Pointedstick wrote: I think everyone does this kind of stuff. Example:

"I'm a rational libertarian who loves choice and would gladly browse hundreds of products to find the one that is perfectly suited to my needs, and I'm a pretty average reasonable person, therefore everyone would benefit from increasing the amount of choice available because everyone is like me and enjoys the process of narrowing down what's perfect for them and nobody gets frustrated or overwhelmed by too much choice because I sure never have! All those liberals who talk about poor people being overwhelmed by too much choice are just insulting them because I know for a fact that everyone is just like me and loves to find the needle of the perfect product in the haystack of the marketplace."

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, no matter what size and shape that those birds and their preferences may come in.

Great point and I totally agree with it as stated. However, a libertarian would take it a step further and argue, "there will be 3rd party groups who assist poor and/or low IQ people in making decisions, therefore less government regulation is better."

Well, as a dirty Liberal, I don't make these kinds of arguments.  Therefore, Liberals in general probably don't either.

Seriously, though, I don't think Liberals are any more prone to this than anyone else.  Like any other group of people, there are smart/well reasoned liberals and dumb/poorly reasoned liberals.

Just because someone's reasoning is incorrect does not mean the conclusion is false.  If anyone knows the name of this fallacy, let me know!

Simonjester wrote: Disproof By Fallacy - if a conclusion can be (is) reached in an obviously fallacious way, then the conclusion is incorrectly declared wrong.

of course in order to be true the argument should also be able to be made with clear reasoning and fallacy free arguments, a somewhat harder test to meet when conclusions are drawn from what feels right or what makes the person espousing the view feel good about their beliefs first, and finding the clear reasoning for them comes second, as i suspect is often the case with "modern" liberal and progressive ideology's

btw i am looking most of these fallacy's up, i don't know them all by name or have clear definitions memorized.... i wish i did....

I agree with dragoncar. It's a pretty normal human tendency to assume the world is populated by people like us, regardless of our political affiliation. When I was a liberal, I did it, and now that I'm a libertarian, I still do it.

Liberals of the ilk you are referring to (and no they aren't all that way but a lot are) remind me of Christian fundamentalists. I've known quite a few of both. Everything is black and white. You either subscribe to the correct dogma and sing from the correct hymnal or you do not and if you do not then you belong to the pagan hordes and nothing you have to say is even worth considering.