Ayn Rand/Objectivism Sightings
Free Radical Updates
Local Club Meeting Plans
News & Interesting Links
This is an example of what I call “snapshot thinking”, which attempts to hold almost everything constant while changing the role of government from intervention to non-intervention, and concludes that non-intervention causes one or more negative effects.
To see why this is faulty reasoning, consider this analogy. You’ve got a snapshot of the balls scattered around a pool table. You notice that you could probably bounce the blue ball off the red ball and into a pocket and you think, “Without the red ball I wouldn’t be able to sink the blue one.” The only problem is that the snapshot is an illusion. In fact, all the balls are in motion and two or three are already heading towards different pockets. The still photo merely gives the impression that they are at rest.
Similarly, don’t assume a non-interventionist government and at the same time assume that “all other things are equal”. When you eliminate government intervention you eliminate all its inherently negative effects (such as market distortions and the violation of individual rights). But beyond this you also need to make assumptions about culture and the effect of this form of government over a period of time. Here are some of the many corollary assumptions that need to be made:
When you accept that this is the full context of a non-interventionist government you realise how far from a free market our mixed economies actually are. You should remind critics of the “free market” that what they criticise is not at all a free market but is in fact a mixed economy. If they reply that you’re being rationalistic and that you’re trying to define away their criticisms, you need to point out that the difference between a laissez-faire and a mixed economy is not a matter of degree but a matter of principle -- with radical implications. After all, it is not the free market that is short-sighted, but its critics.
Discuss this Article (0 messages)