Proving Too Much?
Filed Under: Anything Peaceful
Tags: Barack Obama • I Pencil • Leonard Read • Lincoln
- “The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.” –Barack Obama, quoting Abraham Lincoln
- “[N]ot a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make [a pencil].” –Leonard Read, “I, Pencil”
- Therefore, making pencils — and, by implication, everything else — is a legitimate object of government.
What’s wrong with this argument?
Comment by Doug on 13 February 2009:
What’s wrong is that it calls into question the Messiah, Barack Obama. Just bow and worship and surrender your will to His.
Comment by BillySixString on 13 February 2009:
The premise that individuals act in isolation.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 13 February 2009:
Exactly! Notice that there is nothing between isolated individual action and government (forced-based) action. It leaves out the market — voluntary social cooperation — entirely. It’s as though there is no such thing. Nice going, Mr. Lincoln.
Comment by Bill Green on 13 February 2009:
Deep are the roots of statism in our country. As Weaver (or Wilder Lane) said, there have always been two types of people: those who believe they are controlled by a higher power, and those who believe they are free and responsible for their own actions.
Comment by lukas on 13 February 2009:
It depends on the intended meaning of “by themselves” and “individual effort” (and of course, on the meaning of “is”). “By themselves” can mean either “every man for himself” or just “without outside intervention”. Likewise, the concept of “individual effort” may or may not include voluntary cooperation.But evidently blurring these distinctions is convenient for advocates of involuntary cooperation.
Comment by Carl Clegg on 14 February 2009:
I think the cop-out phrase is “or do so well”. This opens up the opportunity to explain how capitalism fails to pay “living wages”, fails to employ the downtrodden and minorities, overpays the owners and management, is unfair with labor, and doesn’t do enough to promote green energy. That’s why Abe and Obama see the solution in using the coercion of the state to fix these things that can’t be “done as well.” So we have minimum wage, living wage, prevailing wage, equal opportunity, affirmative action, organized labor, farm subsidies, green energy subsidies, Amtrak, school lunchs, rent assist, food stamps, and myrial other laws and policies and spending black holes that attempt to do better what the market can’t do. So, thanks a lot Abe, look what you started.
Comment by Barack Obama on 15 February 2009:
Sheldon,There’s nothing wrong with this argument at all! We can use your fine analytical skills within my new administration. Give Rahm Emanuel a call on Tuesday.BHO
Comment by Edward Krueger on 15 February 2009:
Who posted that? Its obviously not the real Obama, because it doesn’t link to the White House website.
Comment by andrewghumphries on 17 February 2009:
The Lincoln premise also makes a “Nirvana fallacy” when it assumes that the government should do what individuals cooperating voluntarily cannot do perfectly. This, of course, is a non sequitur. Not only must voluntary action be imperfect in order for government to action to be preferable, but the government’s involvement must be better than the voluntary alternative.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 17 February 2009:
Good point, andrewghumphries. We should never fail to make this point. Why do people automatically assume that the government alternative would be better than the imperfect market solution?
Comment by John Galt on 18 February 2009:
Seems to me that it implies that the governemnt is perfect in all things it does, when the government itself is made up of the same people that could not “do at all, or do so well, by themselves”The government is infected with people that can not do, so why would we expect them to do any better just because they work for one of, if not the most inefficient beast in the world?Oh well…..Shrugg
Comment by David Duncan on 18 February 2009:
What is the role of government? Better yet, why was “government” created? If we were to disband government tomorrow, the vast majority of us (my self included) would be S.O.O.L. But then again, I’d have to compete. Or would I? Somebodies on this earrth know how to make pencils.Who ensures that the guy who said yes to contaminted food doesn’t do it again? Government serves a legitimate purpose. We lost what that was somewhere between Ceasar and FDR.