answering leonidas's challenge
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.
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.
posted by Jeff Kelley at 10:13 PM
9 Comments:
Hanes’ first paragraph is a synopsis of the viewpoint taught in the public school system and prejudicial language is very often utilized there. To the extent that such teaching is not statistically universal it is a straw man fallacy. The interests of employers and employees are not competing to the extent you may believe. If workers collectively drive up the costs of production (wages) the employer cannot continue to employ them as he is no longer able to compete. That is a lose/lose situation. Taxes can only be raised until those paying them refuse to vote for further increases. The pressure to reduce the super majority necessary to pass bond measures seems to indicate this may be occurring.
Most public school districts must bargain with the teachers unions who are able to exert enormous pressure on them. In many instances the districts divert resources (taxes) from their budgets to settle wage and benefit demands. This diversion comes at the expense of other priorities such as maintenance and infrastructure. The districts then go to the voters with bond measures to “repair decayed infrastructure” which the teachers unions invariably support politically with funds collected from their membership both voluntarily and involuntarily.
Haynes is probably correct in stating that a large number of aware people believe that the perks of public employees exceed those in private enterprise and that these perks are the result of political pressure. He goes on to illustrate that political process using data that supports his assertion.
Federal law allows most union members to opt out of having their dues dollars paid directly into partisan political campaigns. Many union members are not aware of this option and continue to have a portion of their dues utilized for political purposes. Additionally, unions utilize their paid staff to stuff envelopes, man phone banks and knock on doors for both candidates and ballot measures.
For the most part I find Haynes’ arguments sound. It is doubtful however, that they are likely to persuade those whose interests strongly conflict.
Leonidas
"Haynes is probably correct in stating that a large number of aware people believe that the perks of public employees exceed those in private enterprise and that these perks are the result of political pressure."
This is still the fallacy of large numbers, which I learned as eat dung, millions of flies can't be wrong. Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. And I disagree that he backed up his point with data that supports his assertion. I think his is a propaganda piece, pure and simple, relying on charged language to elicit a response in his supporters. But hey, that's politics, isn't it?
I was hoping we were going to have a discussion about logic, and fallacies, and possibly the dangers of uninformed opinion serving as fact. But instead, as I predicted, you instead discussed the issue of public employee unions. I would some your point thusly: Haynes made a few logic errors, but since I agree with his opinion, I think his argument is sound. What say you, have I got your position about right?
I will agree that public employee unions have a lot of political influence in California politics. I also believe that wealthy individuals, like Ken Lay for example, also have a lot of influence in California politics. That’s the way the game is played. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that large numbers of Californians, such as teachers, janitors, bus drivers, fire fighters, police officers, nurses, and prison guards (did I miss anybody) are influencing political decisions. I think that’s how democracy is supposed to work. I also don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that wealthy individuals are influencing the political process, since they are often the employers of large numbers of people, and they drive invention and business that benefits society. I do not believe that either group categorically has undue influence. On key issues, and at certain times, too much influence is exerted, but I believe that is due to the flawed nature of the human condition, and can’t be fixed by passing yet another law.
I do believe that limiting unions influencing while leaving the corporate/business/wealthy individuals influence intact, (why don’t CEO’s have to get written permission from stockholders?) reeks of fixing the game. I believe there is a much better solution to the whole issue: effective campaign finance reform. I wish for no direct advertising of political candidates or issues. All information is available via websites, pamphlets, and dedicated radio and TV stations. Voters seek information about issues and candidates they are interested in voting on. No mailers, ads, phone calls, or any unsolicited campaigning. That’s what I’d like to see.
jeff said:
“...I learned as eat dung, millions of flies can't be wrong. Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it true.”
leonidas responds:
Strange metaphor, flies to people. Was that from a CR class? Your meds need adjusting?
jeff continues:
“...I would some [sic] your point thusly: Haynes made a few logic errors, but since I agree with his opinion, I think his argument is sound. What say you, have I got your position about right?
leonidas:
No. You quoted Haynes initially referring to the public employee unions. You are now resorting to the “straw man” fallacy of falsely quoting me and attacking that statement. See above for my exact quote. You’ve been watching too much of that jerk O’Reilly. “What say you?”
jeff:
“On key issues, and at certain times, too much influence is exerted, but I believe that is due to the flawed nature of the human condition, and can’t be fixed by passing yet another law....I wish for no direct advertising of political candidates or issues. All information is available via websites, pamphlets, and dedicated radio and TV stations. Voters seek information about issues and candidates they are interested in voting on. No mailers, ads, phone calls, or any unsolicited campaigning. That’s what I’d like to see.”
leonidas:
Your “logic” escapes leonidas. After bemoaning the flawed nature of the human condition and the futility of more legislation, you propose MORE LEGISLATION. Why not simply throw out the First amendment?
leonidas responds:
Strange metaphor, flies to people. Was that from a CR class?
No, a bathroom wall.
Your meds need adjusting?
My meds constantly need adjusting.
leonidas:
No. You quoted Haynes initially referring to the public employee unions.
I’m not seeing the relevance of this statement.
You are now resorting to the “straw man” fallacy of falsely quoting me and attacking that statement. See above for my exact quote.
Yes, but I was hoping you’d see it for what it was, playful jest (as were the meds comments). Your exact quote is: “For the most part I find Haynes’ arguments sound.” I do wish you would have elaborated more on the arguments. The rest of my assertion that you agree with him, pulled from out of context of that quote, is above where you seem to be agreeing with his viewpoint.
You’ve been watching too much of that jerk O’Reilly. “What say you?”
I’ve never seen his show, and hopefully never will. I’ve seen him quoted and have seen video and heard audio snippets, so I’m not totally unfamiliar with him. I’m guessing “what say you” is a phrase he uses? I was attempting to play-mock your silly third person, royal we bit you were doing in Fred’s blog by trying to sound pompous.
leonidas:
Your “logic” escapes leonidas. After bemoaning the flawed nature of the human condition and the futility of more legislation, you propose MORE LEGISLATION.
What, you don’t think all the parties involved will agree to the plan voluntarily, without passing a law? Didn’t the alcohol industry voluntarily agree to stop advertising on TV?
Ok, seriously, you make a good point. I request to withdraw my assertion of the futility of more legislation, and change it to the futility of legislation that I don’t agree with. Oops, I said seriously.
Why not simply throw out the First amendment?
Because that would be silly. Limiting political advertisement need not negate the First amendment (why is First capitalized and not amendment?). We place limits on other kinds of advertising. The goal is to take the influence of money out of campaigns. Do you believe that is a good goal? If no, why not? If yes, how would you propose making some progress on that goal?
Jeff continues:
“...I was hoping you’d see it for what it was, playful jest (as were the meds comments). “
OK. It’s your blog. If it’s to be levity that’s fine. I tend to be a little obtuse. You could send a signal when switching gears, like maybe a happy face :o)?
“The rest of my assertion that you agree with him, pulled from out of context of that quote, is above where you seem to be agreeing with his viewpoint.”
You asked for my opinion as to the cogency of his argument and I gave it to you. I didn’t state any agreement or disagreement with his position.
“I was attempting to play-mock your silly third person, royal we bit you were doing in Fred’s blog by trying to sound pompous.”
Sorry, no pomposity intended. Just goes to show you, some attempts at humor will be misunderstood.
“What, you don’t think all the parties involved will agree to the plan voluntarily, without passing a law? Didn’t the alcohol industry voluntarily agree to stop advertising on TV?”
No and No. Seen any cool Budweiser ads lately? I especially enjoyed the frogs. I find the Miller Lite ads rather tasteless however.
“ I request to withdraw my assertion of the futility of more legislation, and change it to the futility of legislation that I don’t agree with. Oops, I said seriously.”
Humor duly noted.
“The goal is to take the influence of money out of campaigns. Do you believe that is a good goal? If no, why not? “
Most money contributed to political campaigns is protection money extorted either explicitly or implicitly by powerful politicians. The only way to remove $ from politics is to reduce the tremendous power of the government (politicians) over every facet of our lives. The answer is not to further reduce our liberty by limiting free speech. (Even the supreme court has ruled that political contributions are in fact speech). There, Leonidas has FINALLY expressed an opinion since you asked for it. Will this give birth to a whole new thread?
MOLON LABE
OK. It’s your blog. If it’s to be levity that’s fine. I tend to be a little obtuse. You could send a signal when switching gears, like maybe a happy face :o)?
Good point. Will do.
You asked for my opinion as to the cogency of his argument and I gave it to you. I didn’t state any agreement or disagreement with his position.
I took this quote: “Haynes is probably correct in stating that a large number of aware people believe that the perks of public employees exceed those in private enterprise and that these perks are the result of political pressure” as you agreeing with Haynes. Some of your other statements, although not directly supporting Haynes’ assertions, did seem to come from a place of similar thought: “…districts must bargain with the teachers unions who are able to exert enormous pressure on them…” and “…utilize their paid staff to stuff envelopes, man phone banks and knock on doors for both candidates and ballot measures” I interpreted as agreement with Haynes’ assertion that public unions were formed as “…a way for union bosses to extract money from unwilling employees in order for those bosses to corrupt the political system”
Sorry, no pomposity intended. Just goes to show you, some attempts at humor will be misunderstood.
The pomposity was feigned on my part. I thought you were being humorous when you were speaking in the third person and using the royal we, and I was trying to play along. Plus, I kind of like the phrase, what say you. But if it's like you implied that Bill O'Reilly uses it, then I most definitely won't.
“What, you don’t think all the parties involved will agree to the plan voluntarily, without passing a law? Didn’t the alcohol industry voluntarily agree to stop advertising on TV?”
No and No. Seen any cool Budweiser ads lately? I especially enjoyed the frogs. I find the Miller Lite ads rather tasteless however.
I should’ve been more specific. When was the last time you saw a Jack Daniels or Vodka ad on TV? I believe that it was voluntary on the part of the spirits industry to not advertise on TV. Tobacco is banned from advertising on TV.
Most money contributed to political campaigns is protection money extorted either explicitly or implicitly by powerful politicians.
I disagree with your assertion. I believe you are confusing a symptom with a cause. It is the interest groups that are extorting political favor from cash dependent politicians.
The only way to remove $ from politics is to reduce the tremendous power of the government (politicians) over every facet of our lives.
Is that really the only way? What’s wrong with my idea of turning the power of government onto itself and limit the means of political speech? And what about removing the tremendous power of money out of every facet of our life? How much of this government interference that you complain about is really designed to insure that somebody is making a buck? Cui Bono? I believe it’s the lobbyists that are pressuring the politicians to write laws that benefit their monetary interests.
The answer is not to further reduce our liberty by limiting free speech. (Even the supreme court has ruled that political contributions are in fact speech).
I don’t see how you can call it “free” speech when only the wealthy are allowed to speak. How much “liberty” do you personally have to purchase political influence? The amount of money it takes for a candidate to be heard means only those with millions can elected, making the politicians beholden to special interests, not the other way around as you suggest. You bemoan the “tremendous power of the government” and yet demand the rights that only government will give, such as the freedom of speech.
Why is it ok to limit telemarketers, but not political calls? I say it’s because enough of the public made a stink about it. We do the same about these political ads, and the supreme court will change its tune. Don’t you think it’d be better if your radio, your television, your mail box, and your telephone weren’t inundated with political ads? Those ads do not inform voters, they attempt to brainwash them.
There, Leonidas has FINALLY expressed an opinion since you asked for it. Will this give birth to a whole new thread?
I should start a new thread, but where would I put it? I think I’ll just leave this conversation here in this comment section.
I think you and I have a similar goal, we both wish to limit power to protect our liberties. We differ on whose power we need to limit. I have more faith in somebody whose stated role is to represent me than I do in somebody whose mission is to sell me something.
Jeff:
“…utilize their paid staff to stuff envelopes, man phone banks and knock on doors for both candidates and ballot measures” I interpreted as agreement with Haynes’ assertion that public unions were formed as “…a way for union bosses to extract money from unwilling employees in order for those bosses to corrupt the political system”
leonidas:
You interpreted wrong. The stuffing, manning and door knocking were all activities I participated in as a union activist. It was a political activity in support of the organized labor agenda which saw its interests furthered by the Democratic party. Many of our members did not share that vision but their dues were utilized for the purpose anyway.
Jeff:
“ Plus, I kind of like the phrase, what say you. But if it's like you implied that Bill O'Reilly uses it, then I most definitely won't.
leonidas:
It is generally wise to be aware of what’s going on in the “enemy camp”. Occasionally they have useful information.
Jeff:
When was the last time you saw a Jack Daniels or Vodka ad on TV?
leonidas:
Never. And I have been exposed to TV since before your birth.
Jeff:
It is the interest groups that are extorting political favor from cash dependent politicians.
leonidas:
It is fruitless to pursue the chicken and egg argument but the last time I checked it was the politicians (government) who had all of the guns.
Jeff:
What’s wrong with my idea of turning the power of government onto itself and limit the means of political speech? And what about removing the tremendous power of money out of every facet of our life?
leonidas:
It was POLITICAL speech that the Constitution was written to protect. What is the reason for your obsession with money? You and I may not have as much as others, but we are free to join others of like views (interest groups) and by voluntarily pooling our limited means have our voices heard.
Jeff:
I don’t see how you can call it “free” speech when only the wealthy are allowed to speak.
Leonidas:
How wealthy are you? You are speaking here.
Jeff:
You... demand the rights that only government will give, such as the freedom of speech.
Leonidas:
I suggest you enroll in Poli Sci 101 ANYWHERE. The government does not give rights! It can only recognize them or deny them. As for the recent “rights” to government entitlements, they are mere redistributions of property extorted from others by force.
Jeff:
Why is it ok to limit telemarketers, but not political calls?
Leonidas:
It is not OK to limit either. You are not forced to listen. Why would you give up control of your telephone receiver to the government?
Jeff:
I have more faith in somebody whose stated role is to represent me than I do in somebody whose mission is to sell me something.
Leonidas:
The government has a stated role in “representing” you yet often you violently disagree with its policies. It, however has a monopoly on the use of force. You have a choice of either a) go along and hope the next election produces a better policy, or b) forcibly resist and be killed. To the salesman you can always say “no thanks”. This is a no brainer!
MOLON LABE
leonidas:
You interpreted wrong. The stuffing, manning and door knocking were all activities I participated in as a union activist. It was a political activity in support of the organized labor agenda which saw its interests furthered by the Democratic party. Many of our members did not share that vision but their dues were utilized for the purpose anyway.
How is this different from Haynes’ assertion? You seem to be saying the same thing in more diplomatic language, that union money is being spent to influence (Haynes said corrupt) the political process against the wishes of (many) union members.
leonidas:
Never. And I have been exposed to TV since before your birth.
That’s nice. Wow you’re old. But how about my point? Were you going to address it?
leonidas:
It is fruitless to pursue the chicken and egg argument but the last time I checked it was the politicians (government) who had all of the guns.
Why do you say it’s fruitless? Is it because it is unanswerable, because you and I will never agree on it, or some other reason? I believe that it is answerable and the answer is necessary to improving the system. How can we water the tree of liberty if we don’t know what blood is tyrannical?
leonidas:
It was POLITICAL speech that the Constitution was written to protect.
Yes, and life liberty and the pursuit of property (later changed to read happiness). And of course all the other freedoms the constitution protects.
What is the reason for your obsession with money?
Because it is the symbol of power, and power is what we’re discussing. The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few is a root cause of at least half our social ills (and at least half is caused by the sloth of the masses).
You and I may not have as much as others, but we are free to join others of like views (interest groups) and by voluntarily pooling our limited means have our voices heard.
And if we reduced the cost of campaigns, and of lobbying, then those of us with limited means would have a greater voice.
Leonidas:
How wealthy are you? You are speaking here.
Last time I called the white house, they didn’t put me through. Would the internet exist as it does today if it had been purely a commercial endeavor?
Leonidas:
I suggest you enroll in Poli Sci 101 ANYWHERE.
Playful jest or ad hominem?
The government does not give rights! It can only recognize them or deny them.
Seems to me like you’re quibbling over wording here. I’m referring to the concepts I learned from reading this book Give rights or recognize rights, however you wish to express it, what we’re discussing are the concepts of the social contract.
As for the recent “rights” to government entitlements, they are mere redistributions of property extorted from others by force.
Care to elucidate?
Leonidas:
It is not OK to limit either.
But we do. There is a do not call list. There are laws restricting telemarketing. Your point is that you feel these laws are wrong?
You are not forced to listen.
Technically true.
Why would you give up control of your telephone receiver to the government?
Could you please explain this further? Personally, I’m grateful for the do not call list. It gives me greater control over my telephone receiver. It’s a perfect example of the social contract being used to the advantage of the greater good. The do not call list is a lot like the current system for public employee union members. They can put their name on a list and not have their dues used for political purposes. Works for me.
Leonidas:
The government has a stated role in “representing” you yet often you violently disagree with its policies.
I’d prefer vehemently disagree, since I prefer nonviolence. The majority of the policies I disagree with are those that are meant to benefit the few to the detriment of the majority.
It, however has a monopoly on the use of force.
Yes, that is a primary underlying principle of the social contract. People who are, at least in theory, beholden to the will of the majority are responsible for arbitrating conflict. This was in response to the feudal system where private armies vied for power and peasants be damned.
You have a choice of either a) go along and hope the next election produces a better policy, or b) forcibly resist and be killed.
I do believe you’re employing a false dilemma. During the women’s suffrage, they resisted, and a few were killed, but in the end, they were victorious. During the civil rights movement, many were killed, (more by private citizens than by government representatives), but in the end, they made gains.
To the salesman you can always say “no thanks”. This is a no brainer!
You familiar with the protection racket? My assertion is that without a social contract, the guy trying to sell you something wouldn’t take no for an answer, even if you added the thanks. They called themselves Duke, Lord, Earl, Prince, King. We called them robber barons.
Post a Comment
<< Home