The problem with Feminism

In a rather interesting conversation to observe, a skeptic confronted a feminist on what the word "feminist" means. The person claiming to be a feminist said that it was a person who supported gender equality. The skeptic replied in a rather interesting manner.

If that were all there was to feminism, there would be no controversy. There is a lot of controversy.
P -> Q
~Q
:: ~P

This response was apparently not welcomed because the skeptic was then compared to a misogynist trying to put women back in the kitchen.

The problem is, the skeptic was right. If feminism simply meant someone who supports gender equality there would be very little controversy except for a few very backwards people. There is, however, much controversy, and that supplies evidence that there is much more to feminism than simply seeking equality. This is the reason there are people who say "because I support equality, I am not a feminist."

The problem is that feminism, and feminists in general, refuse to own the radicals in their own movement.

Take the case of Westboro Baptist Church, famous for picketing funerals with anti-gay propaganda. Many Christians are quick to say that the members of that church aren’t "true Christians," a response that has caused Antony Flew to describe the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. A fallacy or not, it does show that the speaker believes that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are not demonstrating the way a Christian should behave.

With feminism, there is a different response, and it is not even up to the level of a No True Scotsman fallacy. This response is so common it has even been given an acronym – NAFALT. When confronted with something radical said in the name of feminism, apologists will say "Not All Feminists Are Like That."

Take the case of Youtube Vlogger Femitheist, who made a video that appears to advocate androcide, reducing the male population to 10% of its current numbers. Rather than say "yes, that is a position taken by feminists" or "no, that is not a position taken by feminists" the speaker seeks to simultaneously embrace and reject the radical position.

It is this refusal to own the issue, by either acceptance or rejection, that confounds those who would wish to be allies if feminism was what advocates claimed it to be, because the positions taken by the radicals are clearly not positions that advocate equality. If the "mainstream feminists" were to take a position, for or against, the radical positions then those who do not consider themselves to be feminists and consider themselves to be supporters of equality can finally come down one way or the other with regards to feminism.

Going Back, in Theory

It may seem hard to believe, but there are Democrats trying to argue that raising taxes would be a good idea, even though the United States is still in the middle of an economic depression. Democrats have not been so bold about raising taxes since Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign. To support this argument, the economic conditions under Bill Clinton and John Kennedy are brought up. Taxes were somewhat higher under Bill Clinton, and they were a lot higher under John Kennedy. If that were all that were different, there would be an argument in favor of that point of view.

As all libertarians know, total taxation is always equal to total spending. Based on that bit of economic knowledge, taxes were definitely higher under George Bush Jr. than they were under Bill Clinton. The only difference is that Bill Clinton favored direct taxes while George W. Bush favored indirect taxes.

While income taxes were higher under John Kennedy, those same taxes were reduced under John Kennedy. When he assumed office he lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%, making that an argument in favor of cutting taxes. That would seem to be an argument in favor of significantly cutting taxes.

The most important flaw is that the argument is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. To demonstrate this is actually very easy. If everything was so much better under John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, then the United States should go back to that in full. The regulatory state has advanced greatly since then, as has the security state and the welfare state.

Those who insist that those eras were better with those higher tax rates should also insist those eras were better with less regulation. The return to the taxes of that era should be accompanied by the repeal of all laws passed since that era. If, for some reason, the Democrat making that pro-tax argument doesn't agree, their own position of how conditions were better in that era can be used against him.

Child Labor

A fourteen year old boy goes to the grocery store to ask for a job. He is turned away, told that hiring him is against the law. He’s not seeking full time employment; he’s seeking to bag groceries for a few hours on the weekend. He is not allowed to because the law, which knows better, tells him he is not yet ready to work for income. The only income allowable to people his age comes from chores, or sometimes lawn mowing or babysitting.

Mention allowing that child to get a job, and the response is horror stories about factories and coal mines. It is a temporal fallacy because while that was once the case it is not the case today. Allowing people under the age of sixteen to seek employment will not result in children being taken out of schools and locked in dangerous factories.

It is not as if there are no exceptions to child labor laws. Minors are employable on family businesses and in artistic pursuits. Allegedly these are different because of parental involvement, which would mean that those in favor of child labor laws believe that parents would abuse their children if given any other labor option for their children.

There are jobs today that are just as safe for a person of fourteen years as they are for a person of sixteen years. Those jobs involve asking "paper or plastic" or "would you like fries with that." Those jobs are there as entry level positions that enable a person to learn how to hold down a job. Some people even go so far as to suggest that those jobs are created specifically for teenagers to soak up some surplus labor.

Given that conditions have changed much since the days of the coal mines and the locked factories, it is clearly time to stop thinking of those times as a basis for restricting child labor, and allowing those who wish to succeed a chance to do so.

The Omniscience Fallacy

Austrian economics views people as rational actors when making decisions in the market, which is one of the many reasons government intervention is frowned upon. If a person wants to make one decision, and the government forces a different decision, then by definition that person is doing something they would normally consider irrational if not for the threat of government force.

Ayn Rand calls man the "rational animal" saying that reason is the tool of survival for man. She decried the use of government to intervene on the basis that since reason is the tool of survival, forcing a person to act differently is to force the person to act against their own survival.

Both of them would have that a person acting within the confines of their knowledge and desires will attempt to make the decisions that are best for themselves.

This runs into an interesting claim sometimes made by Progressives and Keynesians, that there is no way to consider a person to be a rational decision maker based on not having enough facts with which to make a decision. Supposing a person wants to buy a computer, and he compares several brands at several stores before coming to a conclusion based on cost, capability, and his needs. Well, the progressive will claim, if there is another model out there that still even more closely fits his needs then he didn't make the most rational decision.

By their unfairly high standard, it is impossible for anyone to make a rational decision. This clearly calls for the decision maker to know everything in order to make a decision. It is an attempt to deny that decisions are made rationally in the first place.

Accusing the progressive of demanding omniscience will only result in denials of that charge and a clarification that the person only need to know all the relevant information. But the problem is, that is omniscience. Suppose that same computer goes on sale the next day? Buying it that day will result in what is, from the progressive point of view, an irrational decision.

The irony here is that while creating a strawman in order to "prove" that an individual lacks sufficient facts, the progressive is undermining their own belief system. It is progressivism that believes that central planners can indeed have enough information to make plans, not only for themselves, but for others as well and for the economy as a whole.

The "rational" definition used by both Austrians and Objectivists clearly states that people are rational within the confines of their knowledge. Claims to the contrary are fallacies.

The Mafia Fallacy

The question is asked: if the government were to recede wouldn't some other organization promptly take over? In earlier incarnations of this fallacy the "other organization" discussed was often the Mafia or other organized crime syndicates. It has since been updated to discuss "the corporations" taking over, and sometimes even specific corporations such as Blackwater / Xe. Since the argument started by using the Mafia, and that is the version closest to having a sensible basis to argue from, the fallacy should be named in honor of the Mafia.

With regards to corporations it is actually an absurd question. First of all, corporations as they exist today exist because of government charter. Without the government, corporations as we know them would not exist. Blackwater is even more special because it would not exist unless the government is itself imperial, as a company like Blackwater would not exist without government as a customer. It is, essentially, an adjunct of government. The powers that corporations have that are abused are powers that were granted by the government.

Corporations, with the power not abused, are there to conduct peaceful voluntary transactions with willing customers. How could they "take over" with that sort of mindset? And what exactly are the critics thinking of when they make that claim? With corporations form police forces and require people to purchase their goods?

That is why the original claim, about organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia, makes a better argument. The classic "protection money" correlates very well to paying taxes. But an analysis of organized crime reveals some flaws even in this.

The primary revenue source of organized crime is engaging in black market activities, the sale of goods or services that are illegal In the 1920s that included alcohol. When alcohol was no longer banned open competition drove organized crime out of that market. When alcohol was banned, competition took place in the form of territorial jurisdiction, while legal goods compete in terms of price and quality.

In the event of a government drawback the primary revenue source of organized crime will disappear. The primary criminal black markets - drugs, gambling, sex - will not have government restrictions. That leaves only the classic activity of protection money as a potential activity for organized crime.

Shakedowns, protection money, unauthorized taxation, that is the point which shows that the fallacy can only work when someone is ready and willing to use coercive force, and why criminal organizations may do this and why discussing corporations makes a much weaker fallacy.

The reason that organized crime is able to do shakedowns is because of their subversion of the police, how officers will look the other way at criminal activity. An individual who attempts to fight back against organized crime will find no help from the agencies that are supposed to assist.

But it has a very small economic return. Government is inherently an unprofitable activity. The shakedowns, under current criminal activities, augment the income of the crime syndicates and are not a major source of revenue. Depriving organized crime of black market revenue while allowing people to defend themselves from shakedown enforcers will make even the Mafia have a hard time instituting a new government.

It isn't impossible, but it is far more difficult than is assumed by those committing the fallacy, and it is only possible for criminal gangs and not the corporations. Not even Blackwater.

Near-miss Libertarian

Although the world is full of unpleasant examples of socialism, apparently not a single country that embraced central planning has ever counted as an example in any discussion of the subject. In each and every case the country in question wasn’t “real” socialism. It is a giant international game of "No True Scotsman" with regards to socialism. Every country in the Warsaw Pact, as well as China, Cuba, and North Korea are not examples of real socialism.

It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.

This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.

One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.

Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.

Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.

A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.

Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.

The Temporal Fallacy

Although it really cannot be done, there are those who attempt to find an era in some country in which libertarian ideas reigned. But there are valid attempts to show how certain eras qualify in one manner or another. Part of the problem is that conditions always change.

The United States, for example, has advanced liberty in some areas and degraded liberty in other areas. In the past there was much more economic liberty, but that was before slavery ended and before women and minorities were given the right to vote.

But generally it is assumed that the late nineteenth century in the western world, for all its flaws, had many of the characteristics of a libertarian society.

Many statists will immediately point to the flaws and say that it is the flaws that libertarians advocate. They are not interested in a true discussion or debate, only trying to find some ammunition, no matter how ludicrous, with which to try to tar libertarianism.

Then there's the temporal fallacy.

Due to advances in technology, there are amenities available today that were not available then. But there were advances then that were not available before then. True, compared to a modern factory, an earlier factory from the late 1800s would seem rather crude and dangerous – but it is better than what existed before then.

The fallacy is that everything that happened then is judged by today's standards. Thanks to advances in technology and worker productivity, companies can afford many more safety features than they were able to in the past. Those advances were not available then; therefore they were not implemented then. To the person committing the fallacy, that those advances were not implemented then is an unforgivable sin.

The fallacy is judging a factory from the 1880s by the standards of the 2010s. Of course it won't measure up. The factory must be judged in the proper context.

The factories of the day were, in general although there were exceptions, as safe as they could have been given the resources they had. People worked there because they were safer than other occupations and paid more than other occupations.

Yes, they didn't have closed circuit computer controlled safety systems. Of course those who commit this fallacy, when hard pressed, will admit that they don't expect closed circuit computer controlled safety systems, but then immediately turn around and deplore unmentioned safety protocols available today.

Conditions then were still an improvement over previous conditions. The economic liberty of the late 1800s created greater prosperity. And it is that same prosperity created then that enabled the more advanced technology available today - and the same prosperity that enables people to commit the temporal fallacy.

No True Libertarian

"You say that your philosphy is strictly against any intervention in the economy. You say any intervention is a violation of your philosophy. Here is an intervention that I declare you like. If you disagree with me then you are engaging in the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy."

Everyone should be familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It takes the form of someone denying that a potentially embarrassing member of a group is a member of a group at all. It is quite common in discussions of communism, where each and every despotic communist regime is said to be "not really communism." In rare occasions the defender of communist thought will try to label the system under discussion as capitalist because in the Soviet Union "there were a small number of rich people who owned and controlled everything and everyone else was poor."

"No True Scotsman" is useful for anyone who belongs to a group with active and vocal extremists committing acts that would embarrass the rest of the group. Communist regimes embarrass communists. The inquisition still embarrasses Christians.

But there is another fallacy, sort of a mirror image fallacy, that also comes into play. It is the "No True Libertarian" fallacy. It is not employed by members of the group under examination. It is employed by opponents of the group under examination. "You do not spit on the poor? You’re not a true libertarian." It gets its name because it was discovered in a debate in which someone who opposed libertarianism kept decrying his opponents of not being libertarian when they didn’t hold positions he said they should hold.

Various absurd positions that libertarians "should" take were brought up; embracing slavery, a willingness to turn family members into prostitutes, a desire to live in a world similar to "Mad Max" movies, etc. When people denied the extreme anti-libertarian positions, they were described as not real libertarians. And if libertarians point out that anti-libertarian positions are indeed not consistent with any form of libertarian thought, the anti-libertarians insist that means that libertarianism is nothing more than a pick and choose ideology.

So if a position that is inconsistent with libertarianism is said to be inconsistent with libertarianism, that means libertarianism is itself inconsistent?

According to all the attributes assigned to libertarians by those who oppose it, if one counts the number of libertarians who do not hold those ideas then there really are no true libertarians anywhere in the world.


Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.

The Is / Ought Fallacy

"Without Taxes, how will we pay for roads and schools and medical care?"

It is a common enough question whenever someone objects, not just to all taxes as is proper to do, not just to the current level which is excessive to all minarchists and many other thinking people, but even to proposed increases in taxes which will be used to fund new programs.

At first glance it appears to be an application of the Statist Fallacy, there is also another fallacy at play here, the Is / Ought fallacy. It is a Statist Fallacy because the assumption is that if the government doesn't provide these services than nobody will, and that by opposing the government being the provider of these services one also opposes the services being provided at all.

But it is also an is / ought fallacy. The speaker is assuming that the way things are, that the government provides these services, is the way things ought to be, and by expressing the point in that particular way the speaker is hoping to lay a verbal trap for any opponent of expanded government. One can either deny that taxes should pay for those and because of the statist fallacy agree that those should not exist, or one can agree that those services are valuable and because of the is / ought fallacy agree that the government should fund them.

A good answer is "since currently those are paid for by taxes, we currently need taxes to pay for those" and then immediately accuse the speaker of engaging in the is / ought fallacy. The inclusion of the word "currently", twice in one answer, allows the libertarian in the argument to sidestep the trap of either embracing the statist fallacy or the is / ought fallacy, and it becomes very difficult for even a determined statist to pull a quote out of context. Leaving out either instance of that word eases decontextualization and the ability to try to argue that the libertarian is actually agreeing on some level with the statist.

"Since currently those are paid for by taxes, we currently need taxes to pay for those. What a fine example of the is / ought fallacy, where since that is the way it is therefore that is the way it ought to be. Why ought it be that way? Is there no other way to fund those besides taxes?"

The Statist Fallacy

A common argument in favor of any new proposed law is that if someone opposes the law then the person who opposes the law is in favor of whatever the law is supposed to prevent. For instance, whenever someone suggest that laws against drugs be repealed then the argument is then made that anyone who makes that argument is therefore in favor of drug use. Or when someone suggests that prostitution be legal the argument is made that anyone who makes that argument is a proponent of prostitution.

Also when a new government program is proposed, if someone dares suggest that the government has no business providing a good or service then whoever dares make that suggestion doesn't want that service provided at all. For instance, anyone who dares suggest that the government has no role in providing health care is accused of wanting people to not be able to access health care.

These are two variations of the same fallacy. It is assumed that if the government isn't involved then the issue is unresolved, and anyone who opposes a government solution then opposes a solution at all.

It's a very nasty fallacy, as it often puts those who oppose government solutions on the defensive. They have to defend themselves against many spurious vice charges, such as indulgence in prostitution or drugs, or the vice of greed since they allegedly want to keep their money rather than solve some problem that the government would use that money to solve. Loaded questions such as whether anybody who opposes welfare ever gives to charity are thrown up to distract from the main argument of the program itself.

As any proponent of liberty knows, it is quite possible to oppose something and oppose laws against it at the same time, such as opposing racism and opposing thought crime laws. It is also possible to support something and oppose laws mandating it at the same tme, such as charity. The simple solution when faced with the statist fallacy is to call it for what it is. A more argumentative solution is to say "so you require a law for you to do what is right?"

Fallacy of the Broken Window

Anyone who has studied economics is familiar with the parable of the broken window. One day in a peaceful small town some kid throws a rock through the Baker’s window. Understandably the baker is upset about this because now he has to buy a new window. A Keynesian economist comes along and declares this to be a good thing because this stimulates economic activity, as the Baker will buy a new window enabling the Glazer to make purchases he would not have otherwise been able to, creating a ripple effect throughout the economy. He calls it "The Parable of the Broken Window."

But a Misean economist comes along and calls it "The Fallacy of the Broken Window” instead of "The Parable of the Broken Window" because the Keynesian assumes the Baker's money was doing nothing and is now being put to use. The Misean says that we do not know what the Baker might have done with the money, what he would have spent it on instead. The Baker might have purchased, for example, a newer and better oven, increasing his productivity. Instead of everyone being better off, because bread is now cheaper and more plentiful, the town is really only poorer by the amount of one window. This is commonly referred to as the problem of the unseen.

Socialists and Keynesians hate the fallacy of the broken window. It undermines their entire view. Creative destruction and central planning do not create wealth if the story of the broken window is considered a fallacy instead of a parable. But for a long time the only response was to say that calling it a fallacy is wrong. But now it seems there is circulating in the discussions of central planners a new counter to "The Fallacy of the Broken Window." Some central planners are starting to call it "The Fallacy of the Fallacy of the Broken Window."

Their argument is that we do not know that he would have spent the money in a productive manner. Since we do not know that the money would have been used productively if the Baker's window were not broken, and we do know that the money was used productively since the Baker’s window was broken, the certainty of productive use in the latter situation means that the problem of the unseen is a fallacy and therefore advocating for the former situation is uninformed.

There is a major problem with that counter argument.

While it is true we do not know exactly what the Baker might have spent the money on otherwise, we do know it in a few broad categories. He would either have saved it, spent it, or given it away.

If he gives it away then the three options pass on to another person, who either spends it or saves it or give it away. Eventually the wealth will get spent or saved, so this option can be ignored as simply regression.

If he spent it, then it is a given it would have been spent in a productive manner given that people do act in their own rational self interest within the confines of their knowledge. To say it was spent in an unproductive manner is a subjective value judgment that Keynesians are not actually capable of making. This is also true if the recipient of giving the money away spends it.

Finally if he saves it, it is a use. This is the biggest Keynesian stumbling block, but as all Miseans know saving is not detrimental to the economy. Saving is how a person is able to consume in the future. The Baker might be saving up for that new oven, and in another month would have been able to purchase it, but now cannot because his savings must be spent unproductively on a new window. If the money is saved in a bank, the bank lends it out for economically productive purposes. But even if the money is saved in a box buried in the back yard it is still being put to the economically useful activity of saving for the purpose of future consumption.

The central planner's response to "The Fallacy of the Broken Window" by calling it “The Fallacy of the Fallacy of the Broken Window" is actually "The Fallacy of the Fallacy of the Fallacy of the Broken Window."