Talk:Broken window fallacy

War

I'm sorry, how is war a broken window fallacy? CorruptUser (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant not war in itself specifically but war as a context for the fallacy. Economics also isn't a broken window fallacy by itself. Feel free to suggest another title. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 17:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The argument that wars stimulate the economy is a textbook example of the broken window fallacy, but people go to war for reasons other than economic stimulation. CorruptUser (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's true that wars aren't always solely started for economic reasons but the article doesn't imply that anyway. As I understand it the fallacy can be used for any case where the argument goes "Destruction/Negativity yields Recovery/Positivity", regardless of context. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 12:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well GDP does rise with every broken window. And many people think GDP is a useful and proper indicator of the "success" of states. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The broken-window justification for war is, IIRC, also commonly applied to [political] revolution (which is often (though not always) a form of civil war if you think about it), e.g. attempts to overthrow and replace an existing government (French Revolution, October Revolution, etc.), so that should probably be mentioned. I'd do it myself, but I'm topic banned from ref notes, so… 🤷

I also think that it might be worth noting that the broken-window parable might not always be fallacious, if the existing status quo is really that bad and that well-entrenched (for example, apartheid in South Africa or Israel/Palestine) that causing some chaos is necessary and worthwhile to remove the old system and bring in something that's less… "boot stamping on a human face forever". That sort of thing would, by its very nature, probably invite some vigorous debates, especially on the subject of what to do with supporters of the system that's being thrown out (going Robespierre on their asses may sometimes be the right call, but in a lot of cases (if not most cases, especially in the context of modern times), it's just way too much bloodshed and damage). Or would a discussion of when a system is bad enough that it needs to be demolished and replaced be beyond the scope of this article? --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)