5 ms·
they are comparing strikes to a doctor doing the following stuff: > Assume that the physician (the employee) goes on strike. His ultimatum: “You pay me twice t
by ftxbro 3y ago
they are comparing strikes to a doctor doing the following stuff:
> Assume that the physician (the employee) goes on strike. His ultimatum: “You pay me twice the fee I am now getting or I quit! Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment. Meet my demands or do without medical care from now on.”
fee.org is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat... which is a conservative think tank like the cato institute
- rufus_foreman 3y ago>> fee.org is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat... which is a conservative think tank like the cato institute If it's a bad argument, it's a bad argument whether it's from a conservative think tank or from someone else. If it's a good argument, it's a good argument whether it's from a conservative think tank or from someone else. It's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument, rather than committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
- cazum 3y agoIt's a bad argument because it's a bad argument. It also happens to be a bad argument from people who traditionally and historically have made similar bad arguments.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago>> It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
- ddingus 3y agoIn context the user meant: >>It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument[, not because it came from Cato] They also imply the bad of the argument is obvious. I do not entirely agree and believe their comment would be improved with just a bit of work. They did not seriously intend to present a circular fallacy. Just saying.
- nvm0n2 3y agoIt actually is circular as written, especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments. As there's no evidence they evaluated the argument at all, we can assume this history is also based on reasoning of the form "it's bad just because" this this boils down to "it's bad just because, just like everything else they say". Also, you're being too generous to assume there's an unstated justification for why it's is a bad argument. Pretty obvious that there isn't, they just assume anything said by the authors must be bad because tribes.
- ddingus 3y agoI don't think I am being generous at all. That's a common speech pattern and often the intent is basically as I stated. Cato does, in fact, produce many bad arguments. Now they don't get it all wrong. They have produced good material. That said, I personally do not consider them reputable.
- cazum 3y agoIt can't be circular reasoning because it's not an attempt at reasoning. It's an incredibly common English phrase that means "The argument is independently bad on it's own merit", not an attempt to show a logical incongruity. Others have already explained why the argument does not hold up, I don't need to repeat their work here. And if we want to be pedantic, "especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments" would make my "argument" an ad-hominem fallacy, or perhaps poisoning the well, but not circular reasoning. But again, as I said, the argument is bad independent of the people who made it.
- jqpabc123 3y agoIt's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument It's a bad argument. "Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment". This is illegal. Basically, they are equating union strikers with criminals. It is a particularly bad argument when applied to physicians. The American Medical Association is effectively a labor union of doctors with monopoly control over licensing and legal practice of medicine --- the only such union in the country. Which helps explain why the average US physician earns over $350K a year.
- readthenotes1 3y ago"This is illegal." Is it only illegal for physicians and not sanitation workers, baseball players, or actors?
- jqpabc123 3y agoIt is illegal for anyone to use force in this way. During the baseball strike of 1994-95, MLB teams hired replacement players. No one used force to prevent it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_...
- friend_and_foe 3y agoSo a right is only a right if it is not illegal? I'll inform the lawmakers, they will be very pleased about this.
- jqpabc123 3y agoSo a right is only a right if it is not illegal? Union workers have a right to strike. They don't have the right to use force to prevent others from doing their job. In fact, lots of picket lines in recent years have featured a police presence to enforce this.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
- friend_and_foe 3y agoThe comparison is made to force the reader, who may very well believe in a moral right to strike, to find the fundamental principle underlying it. If there is no fundamental principle then all the moralizing of striking is just opportunism justifying itself after the fact. Qualitatively, the two scenarios are the same, they differ only in degree. The action is the same, the outcome is only more destructive in one vs the other. But if there is a moral right to strike, it applies to both professions because a right is universal and absolute.
- invalidname 3y agoThis is called a strawman argument. Even in the writers strike some productions got a pass to keep working and finishing important projects. Doctors and nurses were on strike here, urgent care and treatment was still given. This is a ridiculous argument designed to strip away the only power working people have against corporations.
- eesmith 3y agoA fundamental principle in the US is that people are allowed use legal means to make money, even if that means others may make less money. You may call that "opportunism", likely using the neutral definition "putting self-interest before other interests when there is an opportunity to do so, or flexibly adapting to changing circumstances to maximize self-interest" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism . If you have a problem with that, what then is the moral right to form a limited liability company? How are companies not just opportunism by the owners of the company?
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI wouldn't call that a fundamental principle. A contentious state of affairs that we all begrudgingly live by because that's the world we are in. Nobody likes it when laws are crafted that create injustice because it is profitable. I personally am not an opportunistic person in that sense. I don't think someone has a right to shield themselves from liability for their actions. I don't try to do so, and I only passingly consider the legality of behavior I engage in, and only consider the ethics or morality. I would never engage in behavior that would cost someone else knowingly for my own benefit, legal or not. I'd like to live in and help build a society where, from first principles, when we understand the ethics or morals of certain behavior, if something is deemed unethical it is illegal, and likewise the opposite. That's me personally, and probably a lot of people. That's one of the reasons I don't live or work in SV. So I'd say no, it's not a principle and I agree, limited liability is not a moral right. Which brings us back to the topic at hand: striking is not a moral right either.
- notacoward 3y agoAFAICT fee.org is trying to be for schools what the Federalist Society is for courts - i.e. ultra partisan and a good candidate for the banned-sites list.
- MollyRealized 3y agoAbsence of care for ailments has the potential of being life-threatening. Television shows or movies are not.
- nvm0n2 3y agoBut the principle in question isn't specific to any one industry, so how is that a relevant distinction?