The most frequent fallacious argument I hear from Progressives is; “You want to cut government spending on program X which helps virtuous cause Y, so you are bad for not supporting cause Y!!!”
On it's face the argument tugs at the heartstrings and makes people think; "Gee, that sure is horrible wanting to cut funding for something so virtuous.”
However, this Progressive argument is completely ridiculous, if not laughable, when you take into account that it’s constructed with four logical fallacies all crammed into one bewildering train wreck of reason.
The first logical fallacy is the "appeal to emotion", arguing that people will suffer if there isn’t compulsory government funding for program X. In reality, voluntarists may actually want to increase funding for cause Y way beyond what is proposed. Imagine how much more people could fund virtuous causes if we weren't forced to pay for Barack Obama to blow up kids, or if we weren't forced to pay union laborers to choke out people like Eric Garner for resisting Progressive tax laws, or if we weren't forced to pay crony government regulators to give big corporations a pass while they crush small businesses? While the "appeal to emotion" is one of the first cards played by sleazy liars lawyers in the courtroom, in reality it has absolutely zero logical or reasonable merit.
Second is the "straw-man fallacy" where Progressives manufacture the false argument that voluntarists are against virtuous cause Y and then attack us for it. Just because voluntarists don't want to force others to pay for cause Y, doesn't mean that we are against that cause. It doesn’t mean that we don’t want to voluntarily contribute ourselves or cajole others into helping cause Y! It's as ridiculous as arguing that voluntarists want people to be covered in dookey just because we don't want a law mandating that government officials wipe people's asses. Even a fourth grader (or a home-schooled first grader) can see through this fallacious scare-crow.
Third is the "black-or-white fallacy" where Progressives frame the only potential sides of the argument as FOR government spending on program X and AGAINST cause Y. This is a false paradigm of separate issues, yet Progressives dishonestly conflate them as one to peddle their agenda, which is always more government spending and control regardless of the return on investment or the unintended consequences.
This logic train wreck ultimately devolves into the "ad hominem" attacks on voluntarists: implying that because Progressives say we don't care about virtuous cause Y, that our perspective somehow has no merit. I've actually been called a "bigot" by a Progressive just because I said it’s more effective, moral, and efficient to socially shun racist and bigoted people and private businesses rather than sending law enforcement after them and billing the taxpayer for everything. This Progressive knew me personally for years, but when faced with the realization that my point was 100% correct, he chose to attack me personally in a pathetic attempt to discredit my point.
Governments have no incentive to solve any problem, for in doing so, they lose reasons to expand the scope of their plunder and control. When compulsory government spending doesn't solve a problem, their “solution” is always more compulsory spending.
Don't buy into this fallacious and illogical Progressive demagoguery. Real solutions come from moral voluntary action, not compulsory funding. When a problem arises, people will voluntarily organize programs and support causes to solve them. If a program or cause is not effective in solving a problem, people will withdraw and support other programs and causes that are.
