"So the size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing about how free or oppressive a society is. The necessary trade-off between government size and citizen’s freedom simply does not exist. And the reason it does not exist is because many of the most common activities of the modern state – building roads and highways, putting out fires, fighting disease, treating our sewage, providing college loans, funding basic scientific research, providing medical care for the elderly, supplying clean water, feeding the poor, providing parks and recreational facilities, subsidizing farmers, educating our children, forecasting the weather, sending out Social Security checks, and so on – are not inherently coercive or oppressive at all. So it is simply mistaken to automatically equate more government with less freedom"
Fallacy: False premises, because they cost, they do reduce freedom by infringing on property right and hence the right to pursue happiness unhindered.
"The minimal-government crowd uses this “more government = less freedom” formula to make all sorts of alarmist claims. For example, some suggest that every increase in government power is a step down the road to totalitarianism and repression. This is a favorite argument of many conservatives and they use it to oppose even small and seemingly reasonable increases in government programs or regulations. For example, they argue that if we allow the government to insist on background checks to buy guns, this will lead to mandatory gun registration, which will eventually lead to confiscation of guns, and this will put the government in a position to repress a disarmed and helpless citizenry..."
Fallacy: Straw man, as demonstrated by the fact that they say "some argue..."
"What anti-government zealots fail to appreciate is that when our democratic government restricts people’s behavior, this is usually a very good thing. We want the government to restrict the freedom of many people – people who would otherwise do a great deal of damage to us, our families, and our society. We don’t want burglars free to rob, or rapists free to attack women, or murders free to kill people. Nor do we want shady businessmen free to defraud investors and customers, or factories free to dump poisons in our air and water, or drug companies free to sell dangerous or worthless medicines. To create an ordered, prosperous, and just society – something we all want – we inevitably have to have a government that will not let everyone do what they want. In short, restricting some people’s freedom is in the public interest. Naturally, we don’t always agree on when these coercive measures are justified. Sometimes the harm to individuals may not be worth the gains to the public interest. But while we can disagree on such matters, what is not disputable is that oftentimes it is entirely legitimate to restrict people's freedom in pursuit of the public interest – and that we are all much safer and better off for it."
Fallacies: Straw man (law enforcement is part of the small government ideal), irrelevance (the issues being discussed here do *not* justify a liberal government), false dichotomy (either rapists running around free to rape everywhere or government control)
"But in virtually every case in which government tries to regulate the behavior of ordinary citizens, it does so for the same reason it restricts the freedom of criminals – to prevent harm and to promote the good of society as a whole. When people's actions only affect themselves, we usually could care less what they do. But when individuals’ actions begin to harm others, then we do care and we want to stop it. No one cares if you smoke in your own home; but if you do it in a public place your secondhand smoke can harm others – as has been shown by numerous studies."
Fallacy: Here a category error is made: "to prevent harm and to promote the good of society as a whole". In fact, in the case of the criminal law, it is "to prevent harm" exclusively, and in the case of economic control, it is always "to promote the good of society as a whole". In addition, the Nirvana fallacy is made- we are considering a government where actions have their intended consequences; is this realistic? How so?
"Perhaps the best example of this kind of issue has been motorcycle helmet laws – which have become a lightening rod for pro-freedom/anti-government activists. For them, this is the archetypal example of government bureaucrats interfering with our right to make our own decisions about our lives. If riders want to increase their chances of dying in a crash, that’s their own business – the government should mind its own business. But the problem here is not so much the preventable deaths of these riders. The problem is that often they don’t die. Motorcycle riders without helmets typically experience more frequent and more severe head injuries in accidents, which can often mean prolonged and expensive stays in hospitals and nursing homes. And this doesn’t just affect them; it affects all us in terms of higher insurance costs, and increased government health care expenditures. For example, before enacting its universal helmet law in 1991, California’s state medical program paid out $40 million for treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. After passage of the law, that figure dropped to $24 million. Also, a National Highway Traffic Administration study has shown that if all states had mandated 100% helmet usage between 1984 and 1996, the total cost savings over those 13 years would have been $4,638,173,956.8 This is money that came out of all our pockets and could have been put to better use. As Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, has observed: “Citizens must fight for every penny at the state government level and recognize the trade-offs where they exist. In the case of motorcycle helmet laws, clearly the money spent on head injuries means that less money will be available to pay police officers or teachers.”9 And as one state senator, John Cullerton of Illinois, has concluded: “On behalf of the taxpayers I represent, I must ask: Is it worth spending these millions of dollars to pay for the wind in the hair of motorcyclists? My answer is No.”10 And yet in spite of the large public costs being imposed on taxpayers by the absence of these laws, the Republican Congress repealed federal incentives to the states to adopt these laws in 1995. As a result of this action and the growing power of conservatives in state legislatures, more states have been repealing and weakening their helmet laws, and now only 20 states have laws that cover all riders. We are all worse off for this."
Fallacy: circulus in probando, the argument here is that because the government exists and takes care of healthcare, it must exist to force people to wear helmets. The logical absurdity of this argument for government is clear. Again, Nirvana fallacy also present: you cannot mandate 100% use of motorcycle helmets. Finally, insurance premiums are a red herring, since motorcycle insurance can be issued on the basis of wearing a helmet etc. and health insurance companies can adjust for such risk factors.
"One must stop on the command of an inanimate red light or stop sign, yield to other drivers in a number of circumstances, drive at prescribed speeds (a maximum speed imposed everywhere, though at different levels place by place, and a minimum speed set on some highways). We are told where we cannot drive (the wrong way on one-way streets, the sidewalk, certain bus lanes, certain downtown areas at certain times). …The very vehicle must be licensed, and the license periodically renewed. A car must have a mandated quantity and kind of lights, mirrors, windshield wipers, and unobstructed windows. Its width and turning capacity are determined by the state. It must have functioning brakes, mufflers, horn, and other parts. It must pass pollution tests. The car itself and its action upon others must be insured to prescribed levels. The accumulation of minor impositions is really quite staggering when one stops to add them up. … How can we really be free when we are continually triggered to obey on so many fronts?11
But then Wills concludes, “Actually, these rules are immensely liberating.” He explains that without these elaborate controls on our behavior, the traffic system would break down and we would not be free to drive anywhere. “If we all woke every morning, took out cars of uncertain performance, and tried to drive every which way, not heeding (nonexistent) signs or a right-side requirement, any speed laws or rules of precedence at crossings, we would either be crashing constantly, or would be immobilized by a fear of crashing or being crashed into.”12 In other words, without all those coercive traffic laws, we really wouldn’t be free to drive. And such rules are not an example of “Big Brother” telling us what to do, but of “us” telling us what to do. They are not a form of dictatorial coercion; but a form of mutual coercion, decided on in a democratic manner. Without these kinds of democratically generated rules, we would lack the social order necessary for us to be free to go about our business."
Fallacies: False dichotomy, it is assumed that the only alternative to government enforcing these rules is chaos, whereas in fact there could be other ways of ensuring safe cars etc. for starters, a company would be *more* liable for a car that fails if it didn't have a regulator to say "it's good to go". Such regulations encourage companies to consider their responsibility to be passing the tests, not providing safe cars. Another circulus in probando fallacy too- government owns the roads. If this weren't the case, road laws could be enforced by the owners of the roads themselves.
"We can see a similar liberating function of government rules at work in many other areas. For example, we are free to breathe clean air and drink untainted water only because environmental laws prevent the numerous private activities that could pollute those vital common resources. And our venerated “free” market would not work at all without elaborate government rules governing economic behavior, including complex laws about contracts, property rights, fraud, debt collection, and so forth. (See Capitalism Requires Government.) Without these legal rules, markets would descend into chaos and cease to function effectively. We are free to participate in market activities precisely because acceptable economic actions are so highly circumscribed by government."
Fallacies: straw man, small government proponents normally do not argue against government intervention when third parties are involved, such as with clean air. Lack of evidence: the claim about capitalism requiring complex is hardly given much evidence, and the examples given, "laws about contracts, property rights, fraud, debt collection", are perfectly within the framework of small government, and constitute an a dicto simpliciter fallacy. What about all the laws about when you can loan money, which currencies you are allowed to accept or must accept etc.
The weird ways of Johnny Foreigner
)
)
)
)
)