Is there a name for this "logic fallacy"?

[septimus]

From time to time we see something like:

@smiling_bandit

If you want to pay more [taxes], why don’t you? Nobody stops you from making a donation.

If I think football would be a better game if TD’s scored 4 points instead of 6, no one would expect me to insist on discarding two points on each of my TD’s if the other team doesn’t do the same.

If I think a high gasoline tax would be a good public policy, no one would expect me to write a check to the U.S. Treasury whenever I fill my tank.

Why in heaven’s name do people think Warren Buffet needs to make a donation to U.S Treasury just because he asserts that taxes on the rich are good public policy?

smiling bandit, you started it this time. Was this just a cutesy rhetorical device? Do you really not grasp the fallacy?

[Gedd]

Sounds like *reductio ad absurdum * or “reduction to the absurd.” They also could have argued “if you love taxes, why don’t you marry them?”

[Contrapuntal]

To me it’s equivocation. Fran****k is not saying that he wants only *his *taxes raised. He is saying that he wants all taxes raised, more or less. He is arguing for a general raise in taxes. **bandit **is misrepresenting this position.

I suppose it may be some form of a strawman argument.

[smiling_bandit]

@Contrapuntal

To me it’s equivocation. Fran****k is not saying that he wants only *his *taxes raised. He is saying that he wants all taxes raised, more or less. He is arguing for a general raise in taxes. **bandit **is misrepresenting this position.

Don’t be ridiculous. I know exactly what he’s saying. I’m also suggesting, rather more politely than it deserved, that he send his own money off and leave mine alone. Lefties are the ones who want all these giant-sized programs. WHy don’t, for once, you raise the money to deal with it.

Lest you think I’m suggesting something we Republicans would never do - you’re wrong. We can and have actually done this before. I have friends who do this themselves every year. And I continue to practice it what I preach by giving money away to organizations I respect to fix what governments cock up constantly.

[Contrapuntal]

@smiling_bandit

Don’t be ridiculous. I know exactly what he’s saying.

That cannot be inferred from your response. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I’m also suggesting, rather more politely than it deserved, that he send his own money off and leave mine alone. Lefties are the ones who want all these giant-sized programs. WHy don’t, for once, you raise the money to deal with it.

I’m a lefty now? Why? For daring to disagree with a Republican? Even if I didn’t know he was one? Is it possible to state a position around here without necessarily advocating every other position embraced by a particular ideology?

Lest you think I’m suggesting something we Republicans would never do - you’re wrong.

Lest you think that that alternate possession is a pox on the game - you’re wrong.

We can and have actually done this before. I have friends who do this themselves every year. And I continue to practice it what I preach by giving money away to organizations I respect to fix what governments cock up constantly.

Good for you.

[Thudlow_Boink]

The OP reminds me a bit of the “Tragedy of the Commons.”

Just because a policy or requirement would be a good thing if everyone followed it, doesn’t mean it would necessarily be worthwhile for a few people to follow it if everybody else does not.

[Scuba_Ben]

@Thudlow_Boink

The OP reminds me a bit of the “Tragedy of the Commons.”

Just because a policy or requirement would be a good thing if everyone followed it, doesn’t mean it would necessarily be worthwhile for a few people to follow it if everybody else does not.

Huh. I thought “tragedy of the commons” was the other way around, that a good thing for a few people to do becomes a bad idea once everybody does it.

At least one of us has it wrong. And I say it’s YOU! {points into mirror}

[Indistinguishable]

What’s in a name?

The tragedy of the commons is a fine analogy, though, despite the good/bad inversion; the fallacy remains the same in form.

[Snarky_Kong]

@Gedd

Sounds like *reductio ad absurdum * or “reduction to the absurd.”

Which is neither what was used nor a fallacy.

[Jack_Batty]

I think I saw The Tragedy of Commons at Cafe Wha back in '66.

[Contrapuntal]

@Scuba_Ben

Huh. I thought “tragedy of the commons” was the other way around, that a good thing for a few people to do becomes a bad idea once everybody does it.

That’s pretty much it, although as stated it says that a good thing for one person becomes a bad thing when everyone does it.

The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known Pamphlet in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). [6] We may well call it “the tragedy of the commons,” using the word “tragedy” as the philosopher Whitehead used it [7]: “The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.” He then goes on to say, “This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama.”

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another… But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

From here.

[septimus]

@Thudlow_Boink

The OP reminds me a bit of the “Tragedy of the Commons.”

Just because a policy or requirement would be a good thing if everyone followed it, doesn’t mean it would necessarily be worthwhile for a few people to follow it if everybody else does not.

Thank you. Although as others point out, there is a reversal, so a different term would be nice. (In the Tragedy of Commons, we want government to coerce people NOT to do what is in their self-interest, while here we want government to coerce people to do what is NOT in their self interest.)

A frequent example arises in certain types of family vehicle. I might believe that large SUV’s should be heavily taxed as a matter of public policy, yet feel an obligation for the safety and comfort of my family, so drive them until government does discourage them.

A simple summary might be: People aren’t altruistic, and we shouldn’t expect them to be.

Anyway, can most of us agree that smug gibberish like smiling bandit’s is annoying?

[Scuba_Ben]

@septimus

Anyway, can most of us agree that smug gibberish like smiling bandit’s is annoying?

I’ll agree to that. I find smug gibberish from anybody other than myself highly annoying.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@smiling_bandit

Don’t be ridiculous. I know exactly what he’s saying. I’m also suggesting, rather more politely than it deserved, that he send his own money off and leave mine alone. Lefties are the ones who want all these giant-sized programs. WHy don’t, for once, you raise the money to deal with it.

Do you know what an effective tax rate is?

[Ludovic]

My effective tax rate is very high. I send Uncle Sam a big fat check above and beyond my income tax every year. After all, as a liberal, I believe in farm subsidies, a huge military, a huge prison population, a huge war on drugs, and a huge morality-enforcing police force and bureaucracy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

And gay buttsex, but that’s remarkably cost effective.

[Autolycus]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

And gay buttsex, but that’s remarkably cost effective.

No, that would be a logical phallussy.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

I wouldn’t useHardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, because we aren’t really discussing a common pool resource. It seems more appropriate to look at Olson’s ‘the Logic of Collective Action’, what this in principle is.

It is only rational for an individual to contribute to a public good if the value he gains (a fraction of the total public good) is less than the costs, it is clear that the effects of individually giving more money to the government will have little to no influence on the production of th public good (here government programmes). If you still want the public good to be produced, the easiest way is through coercion (ie the state raising taxes). This is all given the prefferences that are assumed in the book etc. etc.

[Carmady]

To understand smiling bandit, you need to understand that to Republicans lower taxes is the end in itself.

Thus smiling bandit did not understand that Frank wanted to alleviate the damage caused by outrageous Republican deficit spending, something he could not do by himself. He assumed that Frank merely wanted to pay more taxes as an end in itself.

To Republicans “lower taxes for the most wealthy” is a shining ideal. Nobody argues that it is good for the economy. Indeed, history shows that Republican policy is disastrous for the economy. Productivity plummets as there are easier ways to make money. Inequality skyrockets, but even the rich do worse. Deficits explode. The future is mortgaged. The coffers of America are robbed and the thieves vanish into the moonless night.

We all agree about that. But Republicans argue that their ideal is worth the damage it causes. It isn’t practical, but it is worth the harm. It would be better for the country to fall apart completely than for the rich to have to pay for the protections and benefits it grants them or for the wars they want it to fight. Besides, once the country deteriorates too much the truly rich always have the option to cut and run on the country, taking their money with them.