"No free lunch, or Whitman County retail mall"

Petitio principii is Latin for "begging the question". It is a logical fallacy in which an argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. Take Jim Fisher's latest anti-capitalist rant in today's Lewiston Tribune. Fisher asks us to assume that private developers somehow belong in the water and sewage utility business. In his mind, the only conclusion is whether the Hawkins Companies should pay or whether Whitman County taxpayers should be bamboozled into paying for Hawkins to get into the utility business.

Clearly, Fisher's argument is absurd. Since the Classical Age, it has been the government that has been in the water and sewage utility business. In the case of the Hawkins corridor development, the county is contracting with Hawkins to build the infrastructure, which the county will then own and operate. The only question here is how all this gets paid for, as there is no "free lunch" for anyone. The county has to pay for this necessary infrastructure and Hawkins has to pay to construct its shopping center. Does every county taxpayer have the cost added to his/her property tax bill or does the cost get paid voluntarily by those who choose to shop at the Hawkins development through sales taxes, many of them likely not even residents of Whitman County? Of course the latter is the best possible solution.

And Fisher's contention that somehow county taxpayer's are being robbed of $9.1 million is also completely fallacious. Imagine that you buy a stock for $500, then you sell it for $3,500. Your original investment has been paid back and you have received a six times return. But according to Fisher's logic, that would be a bad deal, because you could have an additional $500 to spend if only the company issuing the stock had just given it to you for free. Luckily for everyone, Fisher is only a newspaper editorialist and not a businessman or government official.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

Seen one way, the assurance from Whitman County officials that county-issued bonds financing infrastructure for a new mall near the Idaho state line won't cost county taxpayers anything is completely accurate.

The trouble is, in order to see it that way you have to be wearing blinders. If you aren't, you might cast your eyes at the services that tax dollars from the Hawkins Companies of Boise could be used for other than repaying the bonds.

Seen that way, the deal county commissioners approved Monday will cost county taxpayers the price of the bonds themselves, $9.1 million.

If Hawkins were doing what other developers have done in paying the cost of its own development, county revenues from sales and property taxes on the new mall would begin flowing immediately into county coffers. There, they could be used for essential services like roads, parks and law enforcement.

Thanks to commissioners' largess, however, the first $9.1 million in taxes from the development, plus interest, will go to redeeming the bonds.

That makes the so-called public-private partnership the deal represents less cost-free than Administrative Services Director Sharron Cunningham makes out, when she says it "won't cost taxpayers anything." It remains a public subsidy to a private developer, and there's no getting around that fact.

That does not automatically mean it's a lousy idea, of course. The argument can be made, and county commissioner Jerry Finch has made it, that without the subsidy Hawkins would not build in Whitman County at all. And maybe Whitman County residents are, like their commissioners, so eager to see additional retail development, even if it is closer to Moscow than to Pullman or Colfax, that they are willing to help pay for it.

But those residents should not be gulled into thinking they aren't paying part of the cost. They are paying in forgone tax revenue, and that's assuming Hawkins is able to deliver the revenue being projected. Only after the 20-year life of the bonds, or only if tax revenues exceed what is needed to repay them, will county government benefit financially from this arrangement.

And by then, who knows how many other developers will have their hands in county taxpayers' wallets?

How to Argue Like a PARDner

This past Monday, TV Reed descended from Mount Sinai again to issue another anti-Wal-Mart commandment in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. It tuns out that PARD is not just against Wal-Mart's location as told to us recently by Citizen Hosick and Professor Lower Social Classes. Nope, TV and Company are now waging a jihad for oppressed retail workers throughout America.

But that's not the real story. Reed's letter makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. No, the action has been going on in the comments secion. As you may remember, the Daily News started allowing comments on its website a few weeks back. We are to understand from a recent editorial that the Daily News wants a return to "civil discourse" on the Palouse, yet these anonymous comments are allowing people to irresponsibly libel and vent bile and discontent as never before.

For those of you who don't subscribe to the online version of the Daily News, I'm going to post some of the comments made by an anonymous PARDner/PARD sympathizer. It has been a virtual precis on how to argue like a PARDner, with just about every logical fallacy they have ever used being demonstrated:

So your in favor of legalized drugs and prostitution, maybe even a sex-slave shop on the corner, as well? I mean, after all, as long as you don't shop there you shouldn't have a problem with those either. Right?

So your position is that if they made sex-slavery legal, then you'd be in favor of a sex-slave shop in town, since it might help to build a business base. Is that right? All that matters is business and the law, ethics be damned! Is that a good way to characterize your position?

These are classic examples of Argumentum ad Consequentiam (X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences). It's eerily similar to a letter that Dr. Richard King, Chairman of the WSU Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies, wrote in response to one of my letters back in October of 2005:

Finally, Forbes seems content to allow consumerism to replace the democratic process. I doubt Forbes would be comfortable repealing child labor laws or would embrace a proposal to open a strip club, kiddie porn outlet or crack house on the logic that consumers can decide.

Then there are two favorite liberal fallacies, Guilt by Association and the Red Herring:

Those Walmart chasing lawyers sound a lot like Ken starr! I bet you were just as critical of the Clinton impeachment.

What is the point of invading countries like Iraq in order to establish "Democracy" as long as we continue to support China and other repressive regimes through our various business ventures like Walmart?

See, anyone that supports Wal-Mart in Pullman must also support the Iraq war, repressive regimes, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton and be one of those evil neo-com Republicans. But what does any of that actually have to do with the merits of a Wal-Mart in Pullman?

Another example of the Red Herring:

The area includes more than Pullman and another fact which you seemed to ignore is that the anti-Walmart folks won big-time in that other election.

What relevance does Mayor Moonbat and her City Clowncil getting elected have with Pullman?

And another old favorite of the left, the Circumstantial Ad Hominem:

The conservative agenda is nothing but a land of moral paradox! That is until you realize that greed is the primary motivating factor. Paradox resolved!

But if you are so confident of your "rational opinion," then why does the prospect of leaving Pullman's choice about Walmart up to a judge frighten you so? Again, we'll see how it all turns out and whether or not you have genuine reason, as opposed to personal self-interest, on your side.

The only possible reason, according to the PARDners, that anyone can support Wal-Mart is out of self-interest. Therefore, all arguments that supporters make are wrong.

Ahh, where have we heard this before?

Can you please tell me how a store that sells junk at low prices and offers minimum wage jobs is going to help make Moscow "a growing viable city"?

Besides the common PARD mistake of switching Pullman for Moscow, this represents the fallacy of Composition. Wal-Mart sells some low-cost items made in China. Therefore, everything that Wal-Mart sells must be cheap Chinese crap.

Then there is the oft-used (out of desperation) Tu Quoque, the "You too" fallacy:

I'm not sure who you're speaking for but it is not me or my friends.

And the "love it or leave it" philosophy applies just as well to you. I'm sure you'd have an easier time finding another town with the two or three Walmarts you seem to require than I would have finding a town without any.

Try write without insults and see how much of your rhetoric is left.

And PARD's all-time most used fallacies, One-Sidedness and Appeal to Emotion:

Walmart is the worst of the worst. Any of the other businesses that you note would be better. Personally, I'm not going to feel good about buying products from businesses that exploit workers in countries with no Bill of Rights -- even if it offers lower prices. You just care about the law and business growth; ethics be damned.

Then there are the outright contradictory arguments, such as:

I'm willing to leave it up to the votes and see how it all turns out.

Followed by:

Second, I don't think that all decisions should be made by the voters. I'm sure if we had left the decision of slavery or civil rights legislation up to voters, then our country would be very different than it is.

And:

Any of the other businesses that you note would be better [Target was among them - TF].

Followed by:

It shares some things with Target but there are some differences, as well. And I'm not in favor of a Target moving anywhere around here either

Then there is the most illuminating (with regards to the PARDners true political beliefs) argument of all, the Appeal to Popularity:

there is no such thing as a true free market. All markets have always had certain moral and legal restrictions. I just think that the restrictions should be wider and exclude Walmart since it is the worst of the worst.

Of course, the people most favorably inclined towards this claim are capitalism-hating socialist college professors and elitist snobs and they hardly make up a majority of opinion as PARD seems to believe (another fallacy known as Whishful Thinking.) The fact that many of Reed's "local Wal-Mart fans" have joined in to rebut this anonymous Wal-Mart haters arguments shows that.

Meanwhile, we have yet to see or hear one well-constructed logical or factual argument against Wal-Mart in Pullman. Again Paul, feel free to make corrections or additions to my observations. It has been over twenty years since I took a philosophy course.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Burn the Straw Man

From The Fallacy Files:

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

A great example of The Straw Man is on display in today's Daily Evergreen.

In an editorial today, Haley Paul attempts to take on the WSU College Republicans. I say "attempts" because rather than address the issues the CRs raised about the border fence and English as the national language, she instead addresses the war in Iraq, taxes, student loans, spending on social programs, limited government, and the invasion of personal privacy; issues that the CRs have neither publicly supported nor attacked.

In addition, Paul engaged in another logical fallacy by attacking the entire Republican Party based on the actions of President Bush's administration. This is known as "Guilt by Association," or the "Bad Company Fallacy," which is an attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it.

The Straw Man argument is a sure sign of a desperate and weak debater. Do the local liberals really have no better comeback to the issues the CRs have raised? Is Straw Men, Argumentum ad Nazium and Argumentum ad Hominem (e.g. the CR's are "racist," the CR's are "homophobic," the CRs are "ethnocentric") all they have? And people wonder "what's the matter with Kansas?"

Argumentum ad Nazium

From Fallacy Files:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association...

Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".

Argumentum ad Nazium is used frequently by our unimaginative and intellectually lazy Palouse liberals.

Rememeber John Streamas' rant in the Daily Evergreen last fall about the College Republicans?

It [the border fence] is a violently racist symbol, no different from Nazis carrying a swastika through a Jewish neighborhood

In today's Evergreen, they are at it again:

Recent demonstration was in poor taste

Editor:

I was a little disturbed by the story about the College Republicans demonstration for English as the sole national language. Not the idea that English as the national language might be a terrible idea, but the ideology of the appeal being made. English as America’s official language is a valid debate to have, but to couch the argument in nationalist and patriotic trappings as well as jargon is sadly un-American and un-patriotic. Is there any great difference in the ideology or appeal of “One Nation, One Flag, One Language!” and “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!”? They call themselves conservatives, yet what are they trying to conserve? Some fictional stereotype of what an American is? I don’t say this to be insulting, but by definition, how is this not a fascist ideology?

Ron Hughes, alumni, 1994

There was another vague Nazi analogy in another letter by Lucas Burke:

Americans would do well to remember that stirring up nationalist ideas has only resulted in massive conflict throughout recent centuries. The archaic nationalistic tendencies of the 19th and 20th centuries, those ideologies that forced the world to suffer two horrific world wars and the Cold War, cannot continue into the 21st century if we truly wish to live in a peaceful, prosperous and democratic world.

Such arguments only demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of our local collectivists.