for this post to make sense, first read the comments to
this post and
this propoganda piece (It makes me feel yucky even linking to it)
Leonidas (what's up with that name?) gave me this challenge: "Leonidas he would be interested, Jeff if you would enumerate the fallacies in Haynes' position."
His whole first paragraph paints this black and white picture of good versus evil using prejudicial language. This is his most blatant example of the Straw Man Fallacy: “Unions fought the evil employers…” Who is saying this other than him, that the employers were evil? (as in league with the devil?) In reasonable discourse, I’ve heard that unions represent the interests of the workers, employers represent the interests of themselves, and/or their stock holders, and those are competing interests.
“At least that is how it is taught in the government schools, which are run by the government employee unions.”
Um, I’m pretty sure that public schools are run by elected boards and non union administrators. So what fallacy would this be? How about subverted support.
"Was it because the government was an evil employer, putting people to work in an unsafe work environment for unfair wages, or, was it just a way for union bosses to extract money from unwilling employees in order for those bosses to corrupt the political system?”
Classic example of false dilemma, or what I prefer to call either/or mentality. And the last bit about bosses extracting money from unwilling employees, in my union, you can choose to have your dues go to a charity rather than the union. I think this is true for all public employee unions. I think the fallacy he’s using there is called good old fashioned bullshit, but I could be wrong.
“I think most people would agree that something is seriously wrong with our current government employee unions…”
What do you think, is that the fallacy of popularity or not?
“Now they are spending the money they forcibly extract from their members…”
In my union, a larger chunk of our political war chest comes from voluntary contributions. When Governor “they're girly men” Schwarzenegger began attacking unions, our voluntary contributions dramatically increased. The “forced” part, our dues, are spent in part on the administration of the union business. So, a share of union lobby money is actually voluntary, and any union member can file a form to prevent any share of their dues from being used for political lobbying.
“Forced union dues (contributed to willing left wing legislators) bankrupted the state in two budget cycles…”
How did union dues bankrupt the state? Assuming he means the lobbying done with union dues (as opposed to implying that the cost of union dues bankrupted the state which is how the sentence reads), this would be the fallacy of complex cause. I’m pretty sure the collapse of Enron et al, and the faked energy crisis played a part in California’s budget woes.
“Now they are spending the money they forcibly extract from their members to trash the Governor, spending almost $100 million of the money they steal from these government employees…”
“forcibly extract”? “steal”? Is that prejudicial language again? Or is he following the teachings of Joseph Goebbels:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Best I can tell, about the only truthful thing that this assembly clown said was: “So, why do these unions really exist? I don’t know…” And yes, that’s ad hominem on my part.
I'm certainly no expert on logical analysis, and am giving my (not so) humble opinion. But tell me leonidas, do you find the Assemblyman's arguments sound? I'm not asking your opinion of unions, but only about his arguments.
