4 ms·

Can you explain how your statement follows from the parent? To me it reads like a slippery slope type statement.

• eru 3y ago
  Almost any kind of spending that anyone, including the government, does is coupled with some arguments about the benefits it brings. For most claimed benefits, it doesn't require a lot of mental gymnastics to find some arguments why they would reduce some spending in the long run. If you give me an example as a challenge, I can (most probably) spin you the argument of how it reduces spending.
  • callalex 3y ago
    I still don’t understand why that’s an argument against government spending.
    • eru 3y ago
      It's not an argument against government spending, nor was it intended as one. What makes you think so? It's an argument against this specific argument for government spending. Making bad arguments is excessively easy, independent of whether the thing argued for is good or bad, or true or false. To give a simple example: consider a faulty proof of Pythagoras' theorem. See eg https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/FalseProofs.shtml https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/FalseProofs.shtml Pointing out flaws in these purported proofs is not an argument against Pythagoras' theorem; it's still true after all. It's merely an argument against the faulty arguments.