Spot the Fallacy II

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

(I don't know if this topic belongs to the epistemology section, so correct me if I'm wrong)

OK, so, first watch the first minute of this video:

Ready? Now, at first my immediate reaction was that this was a brilliant response, but then something started bothering me, I thought this might be a fallacious answer, but I don’t know much about logical fallacies, so I couldn’t identify it. Maybe there is one, maybe not, but, in any case, I also think that the questioner is wrong, and Chomsky’s answer could be actually a legitimate one, showing the guy why he shouldn’t justify capitalism or whatever system on practical results alone. Still, I don’t know if this is the right way to put it.

This also made me think of the argument that Yaron, Dr. Peikoff and others usually give when asked about pollution, which also bothers me a little, (here, for example:

) they simply associate it directly with longer life expectancies and that's it. Reminds me if this chart:

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads...phcopy2_800.jpg

Thoughts?

Edited January 9, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Jake_Ellison]

The questioner is making an association argument (there's Capitalism, and oh by the way there's prosperity), and Chomsky easily defeats it by pointing out how terrible an argument it is, and making a few similar arguments of his own just to drive the point home. However, Chomsky doesn't seem to be fully conscious of what he is doing, in fact he seems to be at least in part buying the very fallacious arguments he is making to point out the questioner's error.

All the questioner would've had to do is point out that not only does there happen to be both Capitalism and prosperity in America, but that Capitalism is causing the prosperity. Obviously, to discover the causal link, you have to know what Capitalism is and how it works, two things both speakers are obviously ignorant about. Until that's the case, they'll both just think there is no causal link, and that Americans are prosperous by accident, or because they're stealing from someone else. In Chomsky's case, that state of affairs is obviously the result of decades of evasion.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

All the questioner would've had to do is point out that not only does there happen to be both Capitalism and prosperity in America, but that Capitalism is causing the prosperity. Obviously, to discover the causal link, you have to know what Capitalism is and how it works, two things both speakers are obviously ignorant about. Until that's the case, they'll both just think there is no causal link, and that Americans are prosperous by accident, or because they're stealing from someone else. In Chomsky's case, that state of affairs is obviously the result of decades of evasion.

Yeah, well, I agree with most of your answer, however, Chomsky knows what “true” capitalism is, I don’t think it’s OK to say that he is “obviously ignorant” about it, I don’t know about the questioner, but Chomsky has discussed this in many interviews and written works. I know this video alone can lead to misinterpretation, but let me speak for him and clarify that he is referring to what he calls “a variant of state capitalism”, not “true” capitalism, so, yeah, you can switch it with “planned economy” or “mixed economy”, if you like, the same thing. Also, he knows and has stated many times that there is nothing remotely like capitalism in existence, which makes me want to ask you, how is capitalism responsible for the U.S. prosperity if it has never been implemented? It’s almost as if you were giving credit to the "mixed economy" for it. Anyway, so, getting back to the topic, this is similar to the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, but I think his answer is really legitimate in this case.

Edited January 9, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Black Wolf]

Isn't Chomsky a "libertarian socialist"?

I can see why objectivists have a problem with libertarians, if someone can call themselves "libertarian socialists"

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Isn't Chomsky a "libertarian socialist"?

I can see why objectivists have a problem with libertarians, if someone can call themselves "libertarian socialists"

Yes, he is, what is so strange about someone calling himself “libertarian socialist”? Do you know what the name of the fallacy is?

Edited January 9, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Jake_Ellison]

how is capitalism responsible for the U.S. prosperity if it has never been implemented?

Capitalism political system, which allows for free trade, in a free market (among other things). What creates wealth, and therefor causes prosperity, is people engaging in free trade.

In the US, Capitalism has been implemented to a large extent, for a long time. Even in today's mixed system, free trade is still allowed, and the people engaging in free trade are still creating wealth on a scale that is unprecedented in the history of the human race.

It’s almost as if you were giving credit to the "mixed economy" for it.

No, I'm definitely not crediting the mixed economy. The "mixed economy" is the collection of all people and their interactions, in the United States. A lot of those people are parasites: witch doctors and tyrants who work hard to sway the culture and the system in favor of socialism, and who's interactions with others is defined by force, and moochers who owe their living to the welfare system.

The credit for prosperity belongs solely with that collection of Americans who perform productive work and interact with others through trade.

I think his answer is really legitimate in this case.

Only to the extent that he is pointing out the fallacy of the association argument. The fact that Capitalism is the political system which causes prosperity on a large scale is a valid argument against Socialism, and should give him pause. A person who's ideology causes him to support the destruction of prosperity needs to check his premises, not proceed to support that destruction.

This also made me think of the argument that Yaron, Dr. Peikoff and others usually give when asked about pollution, which also bothers me a little

I'd love to hear an argument against pollution in LFC, that isn't defeated by that point.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[New Buddha]

Yeah, well, I agree with most of your answer, however, Chomsky knows what “true” capitalism is, I don’t think it’s OK to say that he is “obviously ignorant” about it

While I'm only passingly familiar with Chomsky, I doubt that he truly understands the metaphysical justification for capitalism. Capitalism, as Rand was the first to observe, derives from an understanding that a man, a single particular man, is an end in himself. His metaphysical identity and value is not established or justified by his relationship to another man, society or the state. The bedrock of capitalism is private property i.e. a man owns what he produces and is free to engage in trade with other men to exchange his goods and services. If Chomsky understood this, and accepted it and all the ethical corollaries, he would be an Objectivist.

[Black Wolf]

Yes, he is, what is so strange about someone calling himself “libertarian socialist”? Do you know what the name of the fallacy is?

I really don't know, man. I don't think they named a fallacy for "This guy has no idea what he's talking about". Sorry I can't help you out.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Black Wolf]

First response:

Standards of living in slavery have increased, is that an argument for slavery?

He does have a point in that just because there is prosperity, doesn't mean that the system is a necessarily good one. Perhaps a better argument could be made.

He went on to talk about the five year plan under Stalinism. He talks about how things progressed and Russia became the second world. Then he talks about how "capitalist reforms" left it into the third world. I'm not sure what exactly his point is here. He's saying that the good that may come from slavery doesn't justify slavery, but then he goes on to talk about capitalism. Why? He keeps making arguments against socialism, for the most part.

Association fallacy, except he's comparing one thing to the complete opposite.

Next question:

If this system is so bad, why hasn't there been greater movements to challenge it.

Noam: It's been challeneged all the time

But then he says that just because a system isn't challenged, that means it's a bad thing. And he uses slavery as an example of how a system's lack of challenge does not make it a good system.

So yeah, I'd say that he is mostly guilty of the association fallacy, like Jake said. I stopped listening after 7 mintues. If Noam Chomsky wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop rambling and clarify himself, and get straight to the point.

If I wanted to respond to Noam Chomsky without acknowledging his fallacies, which are not that severe, I would say that he made an argument in favor of "our system". If our system is "challenged all the time", yet systems in which slavery aren't, then our system is pretty good. In "Our system", we have the luxury of challenging our government.

EDIT: I'm not sure about the remaining 3 minutes, but it seems as though Chomsky is going on and on about how slavery is a bad thing, and he's dragging out his Five Year Plan example very long. He hasn't said a thing about capitalism, so I guess I'm not understanding what his complaint is. Does he want to have no government, period? Does he want to have a government that gets involved? I guess I'm really confused as to what he wants, which is actually why I brought up that he was a libertarian socialist. I'm confused as to how one can be both libertarian and socialist, and I'm confused as to his explanation for it.

EDIT: The interviewer is much worse in this aspect. He makes the assumption that if a system isn't challenged, that it's an okay system.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Lucio]

Yes, he is, what is so strange about someone calling himself “libertarian socialist”? Do you know what the name of the fallacy is?

"

"libertarian socialist" would be an oxymorom.

But some of the left use the word "libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist"

"socialist anarchist" is what he is, I guess.

[Mikee]

he's an anarcho-syndicalist which is another fancy name for libertarian communist or something along those lines

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

"libertarian socialist" would be an oxymorom.

Oh, not that again. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USOAkQWGVY

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

In the US, Capitalism has been implemented to a large extent, for a long time.

Could you please elaborate on this a little more? When exactly was this and in what way was it implemented? Sorry, I am not very well acquainted with the U.S. history. As I understand there was something more or less like capitalism which ended up dissapearing by the 1920s or '30s. Is this what you're talking about?

[Jake_Ellison]

Could you please elaborate on this a little more?

I can't really elaborate on the history of America. I mean I could try, but surely, any source is better than two paragraphs I can come up with on the fly. Yes, the US government was quite limited before the 20th century, when socialism became the dominant political ideology of the World. Check out NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE

BY AYN RAND, for instance. (It's an essay in Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal)

[Alexandros]

Great article. You wouldn't by any chance happen to have a recommendation for good reading on the history of Soviet Russia, would you? Chomsky's remark about the USSR in the first 3 minutes of the video reminded me that I don't know as much about its history as I'd like.

[Black Wolf]

Great article. You wouldn't by any chance happen to have a recommendation for good reading on the history of Soviet Russia, would you? Chomsky's remark about the USSR in the first 3 minutes of the video reminded me that I don't know as much about its history as I'd like.

I do remember my Western Civilization professor talking about how the Five Year Plan was a marvelous success, if you ignore all of the people that died as a result of it.

But since I don't know what point Chomsky is trying to make, I can't say what the fallacy is.