Originally posted by normbenignhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
Politicians who wish to be elected seldom do by proposing taking away rather than giving. There is always a point where giving exceeds the revenue, and responsible adults must recognize that before this host of spending programs existed, everyone didn't die. Oh yes they did, and they still do.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThat's not how I read it. According to the description, thse fallacies can be used to block a new idea on the basis that there is a better ('perfect" ) one; even though that better one is not pragmatically achievable.
You have stumbled into the exact tool that progressives use to alter perfectly good, working systems, into social perfection.
My disagreement on this should not be taken as a defense of progressivism; instead it is about the technical meaning of the term "perfect solution (or Nirvana) fallacy".
Originally posted by JS357This nirvana fallacy is the type of argument that says "the free market has been proven faulty" when in reality the alternatives prove no better, and no one claims perfection of laissez faire, just the best yet conceived and tried in limited measure.
That's not how I read it. According to the description, thse fallacies can be used to block a new idea on the basis that there is a better ('perfect" ) one; even though that better one is not pragmatically achievable.
My disagreement on this should not be taken as a defense of progressivism; instead it is about the technical meaning of the term "perfect solution (or Nirvana) fallacy".
The claims of 40 million uninsured, never mention the obvious 270 million that were insured.
Originally posted by normbenignThe alternatives are nearly all better in the real world - not your "Laissez Faire" Nirvana. By what criteria is it better to have the American system rather than - say - Britain's NHS? America's model costs more and has worse outcomes than the British alternative. One third of the American health expenditure goes on administration for pity's sake - you are paying for a monkey on a monkey's back, not even decent health care.
This nirvana fallacy is the type of argument that says "the free market has been proven faulty" when in reality the alternatives prove no better, and no one claims perfection of laissez faire, just the best yet conceived and tried in limited measure.
The claims of 40 million uninsured, never mention the obvious 270 million that were insured.
Originally posted by finneganThe Nirvana is always the claim of the left. Read over your post, assuring us on your say so that the British NHS outperforms the not free market American system.
The alternatives are nearly all better in the real world - not your "Laissez Faire" Nirvana. By what criteria is it better to have the American system rather than - say - Britain's NHS? America's model costs more and has worse outcomes than the British alternative. One third of the American health expenditure goes on administration for pity's sake - you are paying for a monkey on a monkey's back, not even decent health care.
We fully admit our system has warts, mostly created by the parts of our system that are not market oriented, and run by government.
Originally posted by JS357The nirvana fallacy can be used to block new ideas and to defend the status quo, or the opposite.
That's not how I read it. According to the description, thse fallacies can be used to block a new idea on the basis that there is a better ('perfect" ) one; even though that better one is not pragmatically achievable.
My disagreement on this should not be taken as a defense of progressivism; instead it is about the technical meaning of the term "perfect solution (or Nirvana) fallacy".