We need a Master Fallacies List

[RCA]

It would be nice to compile listing of common and bizarre fallacies that we often encounter when trying to convert people to the idea of liberty. One of the most common fallacies is used to respond to the abolition of the income tax:

"but how would the government be paid for?"

The master list would then list one or many different "answers" to this concern/fallacy:

"other sources"
"most of the income tax doesn't pay for the government"
"the same as it was paid for before the income tax"
"reduce the size of government"

I've encountered many different fallacies, some legit, some insane. It would just be nice to compile these into a master list with appropriate answers to each one.

[Original_Intent]

Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

The U.S. had a Civil War.

The so-called Civil War was fought over slavery.

The U.S. was founded as a democracy.

Democracy is a good thing.

There is no propaganda in the United States! We have free speech!

Not sure if these qualify as fallacies per se, they are just widespread misconceptions that drive me nuts.

[Bryan]

Great thinking- lets start some threads and maybe compile the best responses in a wiki page-- could be a good use of the newly revived "Discussion Points For Winning Support".

I'd like to hear everyones best response for "Who will build the roads?!?!"

[mczerone]

"But I like roads, schools, and mail service..."

rebutting Roads: I like clean, safe, reliable roads, that use a minimum of natural resources to meet the demands of the consumer, rather than unsafe, traffic-ridden, deer-littered, roundabout clustered roads, which end up costing more the than privately constructed alternative.

Schools: many options for arguing this one, can use the same arguments as the Roads. Can also superficially ask, "would you rather get an education from a private school or a public?"

[mczerone]

Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

I'm okay with your other fallacies, but it seems that you are presenting this point using a little of the backward terminology that has festered the many fallacies we are fighting. Specifically, the establishment clause does say that the State, and through the extension of the 14th Amendment, the various states cannot take action that establish any religion.

This does not limit the practice of those serving the state, nor does it disallow private celebrations of religion. The "separation" of church and state only comes into play when we fall to allowing "the democracy" to push the state to endorse a religion, which may be a popular move (the majority of the constituency agrees), but is not a Constitutional choice.

[nate895]

I'm okay with your other fallacies, but it seems that you are presenting this point using a little of the backward terminology that has festered the many fallacies we are fighting. Specifically, the establishment clause does say that the State, and through the extension of the 14th Amendment, the various states cannot take action that establish any religion.

This does not limit the practice of those serving the state, nor does it disallow private celebrations of religion. The "separation" of church and state only comes into play when we fall to allowing "the democracy" to push the state to endorse a religion, which may be a popular move (the majority of the constituency agrees), but is not a Constitutional choice.

Ron Paul has a good article on this. (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337) Thanks to Theocrat for posting this in another thread.

[danberkeley]

That Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression.

[Elwar]

I'd like to hear everyones best response for "Who will build the roads?!?!"

It's strange that this question usually comes up when talking about the income tax and it has so little to do with the income tax. It's like saying we're going to privatize all the schools in the US and people immediately ask "what about the high school football team?!?!".

I am far from a road enthusiast but after hearing this question a lot I've come up with a few of my own ideas for paying for roads:

1) Advertising along the side of the roadways.
2) Rental of space beneath the roadways to utility companies. Water, cable, phone, electric, Internet, etc. (hmm, no more above ground wires...imagine that)
3) Solar panels above the roadway, or windpower (linked to the power lines below)
4) GPS tracking device, you need to have it to be on the private roadways (have the phone companies sell them) no device, you get pulled over.
5) Localized funding for roads instead of the federal government

These are just ideas off the top of my head with no monetary incentive, imagine if a company had to come up with ways to make money from their roadway.

There was a bridge going from Michigan to Canada that was owned by the government. The bridge had to be subsidized by the taxpayers and cost a lot to cross. The bridge was sold to a private company that not only returned a profit on the bridge, they were able to lower the fees and get people through quicker.

And think of the number one killer in the United States...auto accidents. Do you think that people dying on private roadways would be as tolerated as they are of government run roads? Every car accident would be investigated to find out whether or not it is the road owner's fault for the deaths or not. They do this in Kuwait, any road death is investigated to see if it was caused by the way the road was set up. Any company building a road would certainly take into account driver safety.

So, when someone asks "what about the roads", I say...why should we settle for government roads?

[heavenlyboy34]

1) WWII was "the Good war"
2) there are only 2 distinct parties, and they strive to represent the people.
;)

[RCA]

3rd parties have no chance
the federal reserve is federal and has reserves
guns are dangerous

[paulitics]

1) The workings of the Federal Reserve is kept secret to keep politics out of decision making.

This is all that is said in college economics books about the federal reserve. Amazingly effective propaganda that dupes even those with doctorite degrees.

2) There is no sizeable corruption worth discussing in the federal government, only in the private market. In other words, the flaws of human nature miraculously do not apply there, even after checks and balances are removed like they are now. Any talk of corruption becomes automatically becomes just "conspiracy theory", because bribary, pay offs and collusion deosn't exist at high levels of the govt. The government has our best interest at heart always.

3. If you haven't done anything wrong, why be concerned with the patriot act. It is only used on "terorists". No american has ever been hurt by it.

[ghengis86]

-its America's job to protect the world (specifically the genocide argument via WWII)
i'm not so sure you can convince someone otherwise if they think we should be the world's police

-people will lose jobs if _____ company doesn't get a bailout

-if Iran gets a nuke, they'll use it on the Jews, so we must prevent that
another ridiculous, but common argument

-the terrorists were in Iraq before 9/11; the terrorists are in Iraq now and we must stay; we can't leave Iraq in defeat; we must honor those who lost their lives to stay in Iraq until victory; Iraq had WMD; Iraq helped al-quaeda; etc.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, terrorists, etc.

[MRoCkEd]

That Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression.
I was going to say this too

[Elwar]

Obama..."Change"...nah..that one's too easy

[Xenophage]

It's strange that this question usually comes up when talking about the income tax and it has so little to do with the income tax. It's like saying we're going to privatize all the schools in the US and people immediately ask "what about the high school football team?!?!".

I am far from a road enthusiast but after hearing this question a lot I've come up with a few of my own ideas for paying for roads:

1) Advertising along the side of the roadways.
2) Rental of space beneath the roadways to utility companies. Water, cable, phone, electric, Internet, etc. (hmm, no more above ground wires...imagine that)
3) Solar panels above the roadway, or windpower (linked to the power lines below)
4) GPS tracking device, you need to have it to be on the private roadways (have the phone companies sell them) no device, you get pulled over.
5) Localized funding for roads instead of the federal government

These are just ideas off the top of my head with no monetary incentive, imagine if a company had to come up with ways to make money from their roadway.

There was a bridge going from Michigan to Canada that was owned by the government. The bridge had to be subsidized by the taxpayers and cost a lot to cross. The bridge was sold to a private company that not only returned a profit on the bridge, they were able to lower the fees and get people through quicker.

And think of the number one killer in the United States...auto accidents. Do you think that people dying on private roadways would be as tolerated as they are of government run roads? Every car accident would be investigated to find out whether or not it is the road owner's fault for the deaths or not. They do this in Kuwait, any road death is investigated to see if it was caused by the way the road was set up. Any company building a road would certainly take into account driver safety.

So, when someone asks "what about the roads", I say...why should we settle for government roads?

Most of the roads in the country are paid for and constructed by local governments, not the federal government. The IRS doesn't have a thing to do with roads.

[Danke]

Workers with private sector receipts are liable for the income tax.

[slothman]

Most of the roads in the country are paid for and constructed by local governments, not the federal government. The IRS doesn't have a thing to do with roads.

Unless you count the extortion of withholding highway funds.

[Truth Warrior]

Wouldn't that just constitute a fallacious appeal to external authority? :D

[dude58677]

3rd parties have no chance
the federal reserve is federal and has reserves
guns are dangerous

The reserve funds for the Federal Reserve are still printed out of thin air.

[dude58677]

"We live in a more complicated world then the founding fathers live in."

The only thing that has changed is technology. Technology doesn't change morals. It is was wrong to murder people back during prehistory just as it is today. It is just as wrong for government to use violence on foreigners and foreign leaders who have never attacked our homeland. This principle doesn't change with technology.

Common sense doesn't change either. When you kill someone who never hurt you, family members of the person you murdered will want revenge. The same rule apples to a government killing civilians, conscripts, and government leaders who never attacked out homeland. Someone will want revenge and someone who wasn't a threat will turn into one because their country was wrongly bombed or sanctioned.

[constituent]

The great society
JFK was well-intentioned
The Easter Bunny

[trey4sports]

The great society
JFK was well-intentioned
The Easter Bunny


JFK WAS well intentioned

he was going to sign an act which restored our currency to hard money

[danberkeley]

JFK WAS well intentioned

he was going to sign an act which restored our currency to hard money

didnt he want to invade Cuba?

[thehighwaymanq]

-All Ron Paul supporters are pot heads.
-All Ron Paul supporters are rascist.

[trey4sports]

didnt he want to invade Cuba?

he did invade cuba, hoping the locals would support him and overthrow castro which didnt happen.

but isnt that a pretty small point, when we look at the big picture of no more Federal Reserve?

[micahnelson]

Regarding the roads...

Lets say we have an Austrian Utopia where there is no public property. What happens to the first amendment.

We have established that the owner's property rights trump the individual's right to speech (You can't stand on my lawn and pass out bibles if I'm an atheist.)

If all land is privately held, and all spaces are controlled by people with the right to silence you, haven't we effectively silenced the voice of those who don't own property?

[constituent]

he did invade cuba, hoping the locals would support him and overthrow castro which didnt happen.

but isnt that a pretty small point, when we look at the big picture of no more Federal Reserve?

yea, you forgot iran and a whole host of other countries, let's not even start on domestic policy.

also, he wasn't looking to overthrow the federal reserve, not sure where you're getting that from...

so in short, no JFK was not well-intentioned.

care the challenge the Easter Bunny too?

[constituent]

If all land is privately held, and all spaces are controlled by people with the right to silence you, haven't we effectively silenced the voice of those who don't own property?

You are assuming legitimate claims to land, a common mistake around here.

[micahnelson]

You are assuming legitimate claims to land, a common mistake around here.

So your response is more of a question of the nature of property rights? I'm not trying to be snarky... im just trying to get a bead on what people think.

[trey4sports]

"also, he wasn't looking to overthrow the federal reserve, not sure where you're getting that from..."


sorry, but im calling you out on this one

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

[constituent]

"also, he wasn't looking to overthrow the federal reserve, not sure where you're getting that from..."


sorry, but im calling you out on this one

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

you're still wrong, try again jr.


(edit: i realize it makes for a great conspiracy theory and all, but c'mon. allowing the treasury to mint silver iirc, is not the same thing as ditching the federal reserve... lest we forget, the dollar was then still partially pegged to gold anyway. again, care to take on the Easter Bunny?)

[Truth Warrior]

Is logic logical? That is to say, is it internally consistent and does it withstand critical scrutiny and analysis under it's own rules in the REAL world?

BTW, what IS the obligation of REALITY to conform to human logic? ;) :D

[TastyWheat]

Great thinking- lets start some threads and maybe compile the best responses in a wiki page-- could be a good use of the newly revived "Discussion Points For Winning Support".
Beat me to it. Yeah, a wiki page is just what we need for this.

[georgiaboy]

A classic fallacy I ran into the other day - "In order to stimulate the economy positively we just need to have another big war"


Oh, and how about "Bailouts, while not the optimal solution, will, in the long run, work"