|
It’s
been a few months since I enjoyed a good argumentation rodeo. One
presented itself on a friend’s discussion thread in social media
recently. I had been resisting the urge to throw-in my two-cents’ worth
(or five bucks, depending on perspective).
By the way, as a matter of pure happenstance that friend is a fellow Libertarian.
In this latest installment of Don’s Debates, a video spoofing stereotypical comments made to libertarians by three pro-big-government characters was posted.
It appeared as though it was going to turn into a
run-of-the-mill libertarian-love-fest in the comments section. Right
after I posted a quote by Frédéric Bastiat there came a pair of replies
by someone less libertarian-leaning. Another individual followed those
two comments with his own selection of a Bastiat quote: “It is as if
the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because
we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Then the straw men were erected by the less-libertarian
participant. He contributed the following observation: “State raised
grain is inferior in some way to privately raised grain? Less iron or
protein, or you just don't like anything any government might do? Will
it feed fewer people?”
The banter continued after I had logged-out to start getting
ready for work. It became a tad circular in nature while I was away. It
had been my intention to not embroil myself in an elongated
point-counterpoint session. But, I allowed Mr. Statist to suck me into
the conversation when he opted to proclaim those who disagreed with him
weren’t adequately making their point.
So, I gave-in and replied with the following:
The problem, [name omitted], is when government (be it here or
anywhere else in the world) decides to participate in any industry – in
the case you're attempting to make, agriculture – virtually all actions
must be run through its internal bureaucracy which makes the production
and delivery of the grain inferior: not the grain itself.
When the production and delivery are inferior, less of it gets
to its recipients in a timely manner. The delays and inevitable loss to
spoilage leads to increased hunger.
You're engaging in a complete straw man argument.
You're deliberately omitting the fact when government is thrust
into a sector of the economy it soon disapproves of competition. This
leads to laws and regulations that squeeze-out private-sector
competitors and leave people few-to-no choices of alternate sources for
that grain.
Adding to the potential for rampant hunger is the unavoidable
political component when those elected (or appointed) insist
distribution be fair, which then requires a massive regulatory
establishment to oversee said fairness.
That doesn't factor [further] increased hunger in certain
segments of the population where the political connections aren't as
vibrant – thus the component of fairness becomes flexible in its
definition as a result of cronyism.
Does cronyism exist in the free market?
Of course.
But, in a free market we are all consequently free to pursue
our desired goods (such as grain) from other sources when that
situation becomes intolerable. Or, depending on the circumstances of
one's situation, some among us are then free to take it upon ourselves
to engage in that industry and produce that good.
Mr. Statist responded later that morning with this end-all-be-all post:
“We don't have anything even approaching a free market. Talk about straw men!”
Sigh...
.
|
