Comments on: Proving Too Much?

By: David Duncan

David Duncan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:14:31 +0000

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.

By: John Galt

John Galt — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:19:35 +0000

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

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:09:01 +0000

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?

By: andrewghumphries

andrewghumphries — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:12:51 +0000

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.

By: Edward Krueger

Edward Krueger — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:18:17 +0000

Who posted that? Its obviously not the real Obama, because it doesn’t link to the White House website.

By: Barack Obama

Barack Obama — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:21:45 +0000

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

By: Carl Clegg

Carl Clegg — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:56:13 +0000

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.

By: lukas

lukas — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:04:42 +0000

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.

By: Bill Green

Bill Green — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:26:11 +0000

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.

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:37:11 +0000

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.