Stefans' "downright fallacious" arguments?!

[Jot]

I was having an YouTube argument and the guy I was debating with "acknowledged" the fact that Stefan makes valid points but he also said that most of his arguments are downright fallacious...when asked to provide some of these he said Offhand, Molyneux will argue that because all individual instances of trade are voluntary within the free market, and because both parties are naturally better off as a result, that the market as a whole is therefore entirely free of coercion, and wholly beneficial to society. This is the fallacy of composition. 

 

I am having problems addressing this point will somebody help me out?

[Lars]

For people who don't know, a Fallacy of Composition is like suggesting that all cars are circular because all wheels are circular. I can only guess that they're indirectly affirming 'evil people exist, therefore the Free Market must be regulated' - typical propaganda.Do we, here at FDR, deny the potential existence of human predators?How is the market "as a whole" anything other than a group of individuals making voluntary transactions in a free society?What does it mean to benefit society? Does Stefan support the Free Market from a Utilitarian perspective? 

How does this have anything to do with whether the State is immoral?I usually don't bother arguing with these assumptive weasels unless it might influence some neutral on-lookers toward reason.

[Wuzzums]

Socratic method. Ask him what "fallacy of composition" is so you know that he's not just pulling words out of his ass. After he explains ask him to provide one instance of the free market where coercion happens. One instance is all it takes to disprove a theory. He will fail to provide an example simply because he said it himself that the traders are in a voluntary transaction, meaning it cannot logically ever be coercive in the same manner that consensual sex cannot possibly ever lead to rape.

[percentient]

It's probably best if he sticks to criticizing specific things Stefan says, instead of offhand interpretations. This is kind of sloppy.

 

For one, what does "beneficial to society" mean? Literally everyone has a good time? Pareto optimal resource allocation? GDP? Average happiness?

 

Second; it does follow that if all individual interactions are voluntary, then the market is free of coercion. That's what it means

[Phuein]

...This is the fallacy of composition. "

 

While it's interesting to review Stefan's argument from that fallacy's perspective, your friend is responsible for clarifying that statement, to the extent that you have the possibility of disqualifying it. I would ask for clarification on it, as well. 

[Magnus]

What does "the market as a whole" mean?

 

If every individual member of your household is free of gonorrhea, is it a fallacy of composition to say that your household "as a whole" is free of gonorrhea?

 

My guess is that he's using the well-worn tactic of using the word "coercion" in two different ways -- one for individuals and another for this mysterious "society as a whole." In other words, he may be equivocating, in order to avoid the inescapable conclusion that a free-market is free of coercion, by definition.

[Lars]

Something reeks of structural violence.

[Psychophant]

While it's interesting to review Stefan's argument from that fallacy's perspective, your friend is responsible for clarifying that statement, to the extent that you have the possibility of disqualifying it. I would ask for clarification on it, as well. 

 

Yep, sophists work with fuzzy terms like social justice or healthy lifestyle. Something which isn`t totally unhealthy is healthy to some extent. For instances the chain smoker self-medicates his childhood trauma to the extent he can feel normal again. The side effect, an increased risk of lunge cancer would make it defiantly unhealthy for the average lad.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"Sure. Offhand, Molyneux will argue that because all individual instances of trade are voluntary within the free market, and because both parties are naturally better off as a result, that the market as a whole is therefore entirely free of coercion, and wholly beneficial to society. This is the fallacy of composition. "

Did the person define coercion? I'm guessing not. If you ask you'll almost certainly find out their definition of coercion differs from the one Stef uses. It's an equivocation. Coercion is the initiation of force or fraud. The one this person is likely using the socialist term "basic coercion" which refers negative things outside of violence (having to work, bad luck, stress). 

 

Also the person claiming it's a fallacy fails to explain. It would have been a good idea to explain WHY the free market contains coercion because that would demonstrate that Stef's reasoning WAS fallacious. Very often it DOES follow that what's true of the parts is true of the whole. 

[Jot]

 

basic coercion

I haven't responded to him yet but I am almost positive that this is in fact what he meant by coercion. Peter Joseph would raise a similar problem when Stef asked him if he cares how his employees feel about him.

[shirgall]

Yeah, the argument is "if each free trade is beneficial to all parties involved then if all trades in a market are free that market is beneficial to all parties in that market." This is *not* a fallacy of composition, it is induction.

[Kevin Beal]

that the market as a whole is therefore entirely free of coercion, and wholly beneficial to society. This is the fallacy of composition. "

I don't believe he ever did say that. He's talking about universal moral principles. The act of voluntary exchanging value for value is consistent with universal moral principles. Preventing the voluntary free exchange of individuals immediately fails this same test.

 

This is not the same thing as saying that if you have free exchange, everything is entirely peaceful.

 

What he's done is made a bad strawman.

[Magnus]

I haven't responded to him yet but I am almost positive that this is in fact what he meant by coercion. Peter Joseph would raise a similar problem when Stef asked him if he cares how his employees feel about him.

It's an old rhetorical trick -- the Socialists redefined "coercion" right about the same time that they redefined "freedom," which means "freedom from aggression" or "freedom from coercion." The Socialists deliberately did this starting in the 1860s or 70s. By the time Franklin Roosevelt was president, he was able to openly (and with a straight face) say that freedom means "freedom from want" (ie, poverty). But notice that there are two reasons the original commenter's friend can be wrong. In addition to the equivocation about "coercion," his argument also equivocates about the term "beneficial" -- that even though each individual trade in a free market society benefits the parties involved (by definition), the fact that they are all trading beneficially does not mean that there's a benefit to society as a whole. This proposition focuses on what constitutes "benefit " which is different than the concern about what types of behavior constitute "voluntary" or "coercive."One response to this proposition, I believe, would be that there is no rational way to measure this mysterious concept of "benefit to society as a whole. " All benefit is psychological benefit. All value (which is the assessment of costs and benefits) is subjective.That's why I jokingly made an analogy to gonorrhea infections earlier. The only way for the "household" to have gonorrhea is for at least one individual in the household to have gonorrhea. There's no such thing as a gonorrhea infection in the household, except for that which infects an individual. The same is true for "benefit." As a result, there is no fallacy of composition, because all of the measurable, real "benefit" in a society consists of the benefit perceived by each individual.

[Jot]

I don't believe he ever did say that. He's talking about universal moral principles. The act of voluntary exchanging value for value is consistent with universal moral principles. Preventing the voluntary free exchange of individuals immediately fails this same test.

 

This is not the same thing as saying that if you have free exchange, everything is entirely peaceful.

 

What he's done is made a bad strawman.

Now that I think about it the situation is totally hilarious because guess where did the conversation start from? An atheist (AntiCitizenX) posted a video in which he attempts to rebut the moral argument for the existence of god by postulating some sort of consequentialism as a valid atheistic modal framework, I tried to introduce the audience to Stefan's UPB but this is where I ended up.

[J. D. Stembal]

I just wanted to add an element to the free trade theory that I didn't already see included in the thread. It's not that voluntary trade is always beneficial, but that both parties involved in the trade will perceive the exchange to be beneficial or else it won't occur. If you've ever listed something for sale on Craigslist, you know exactly how this works. You ask $50 for your old hockey jersey and people contact you with offers below what you are asking. You are free to reject them if you expect to get the full $50 in a reasonable amount of time. If you need the money immediately, you will often have to take an offer lower than your asking price. Price is entirely subjective for everyone participating in the free market, and changes over time.

 

The RBE guys often have a problem with the free market theory, but that's been pointed out already.

[David Ottinger]

The "market" is just a venue whether real or virtual.  And it's no more free of coercive forces than the mall is free of thieves.  There is no such thing as 100% security no matter what form of governance one implements.  The "market" is also neither inherently moral or inherently immoral as it is just a venue for trade. 

 

 

Hope that helps.

[fractional slacker]

 and because both parties are naturally better off as a result, that the market as a whole is therefore entirely free of coercion, and wholly beneficial to society. This is the fallacy of composition. "

 

I am having problems addressing this point will somebody help me out?

 

A lot of good responses so far. I beg your pardon, mine is similar to what has already been said.

A proposition is either true or false. Adding a descriptor like "entirely," you create a loop hole of infinite definitions. "Entirely" has no philosophical value.  The sophist put "entirely" in front of coercion so that they can change coercion to mean what they want it to: structural violence, racism, pollution, and their favorite of all exploitation.

 

By using loose terms like "entirely" and "beneficial,"  this argument becomes the fallacy of adjectives, not an argument of logic.

[Jot]

You guys are real smart! Thank you!

[yagami]

I was having an YouTube argument and the guy I was debating with "acknowledged" the fact that Stefan makes valid points but he also said that most of his arguments are downright fallacious...when asked to provide some of these he said "Sure. Offhand, Molyneux will argue that because all individual instances of trade are voluntary within the free market, and because both parties are naturally better off as a result, that the market as a whole is therefore entirely free of coercion, and wholly beneficial to society. This is the fallacy of composition. "

 

I am having problems addressing this point will somebody help me out?

It is only a perceived benefit. That doesn't mean you are objectively better after the transaction. Stephan never said both parties are objectively better. I believe the pencil is worth the dollar but that doesn't mean it actually is.