>
That fallacy is called ipse dixit, roughly translated as I say so, therefore it is.That's not what happened though. I pointed out that bureaucrats aren't prudent when spending other people's money, and that's self-evidently true.
For example, you know would not be prudent with other people's money either, or with $1000 you found on the street.
> And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better.
I was hinting at the fact that since everyone uses someone else's money less prudently than his own, using someone else's money results in 'waste' compared to using one's own, and therefore, all public spending results in 'waste'.
So it's clear that the free market actually is 'always better' in that sense. It's better in all other senses too.
For example, you'd be hard pressed to argue that a state-maintained monopoly or cartel is better for us than no such thing.
> I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.
Quote the two assertions I claimed constitute your premise.
That's not what happened though. I pointed out that bureaucrats aren't prudent when spending other people's money, and that's self-evidently true.
For example, you know would not be prudent with other people's money either, or with $1000 you found on the street.
> And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better.
I was hinting at the fact that since everyone uses someone else's money less prudently than his own, using someone else's money results in 'waste' compared to using one's own, and therefore, all public spending results in 'waste'.
So it's clear that the free market actually is 'always better' in that sense. It's better in all other senses too.
For example, you'd be hard pressed to argue that a state-maintained monopoly or cartel is better for us than no such thing.
> I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.
Quote the two assertions I claimed constitute your premise.