Talking the Walk: Some Fallacies

Ideas that Build Our Case

Some Fallacies of Free Market Libertarian Mentality

By Paul Hanson, Christian Philosopher

We continue to examine the crucial and controversial question: What should creation stewardship look like in practice?

Sadly, the some Christian talk radio shows consistently echo a vitriolic attitude toward anything that would favor environmental integrity and, therefore, is doing a grave disservice to the body of Christ. They typically defend economic Libertarianism and Consumerism in the name of “personal liberty” and totally disavow (or ignore) the reality that we live in a culture of greed in which the Almighty Dollar reigns — a culture to which, unfortunately, the church is not immune. In critiquing this predominantly “Christian Libertarian” point of view (for lack of a better label), it will help to point out some basic myths to which they subscribe and/or logical fallacies which they typically commit. Let's take a quick look at a few of them:

(1) “There is such a thing as a truly ‘free market’.” This myth is simply false. There is no doubt that capital, supply and demand are operative in every market—including socialist countries. (For instance, the suggestion that ‘socialists cannot acquire capital’ is simply a myth.) But even so-called “market economies” are controlled by trade tariffs and taxes and anti-trust laws, so that the idealized “free market” is only ‘free’ (meaning ‘uncontrolled’) for those who wield the most political influence and power at any given moment in history. The proper question, then, is not “Do we have a free market?”, but “To what degree is it controlled and for whose benefit?”

(2) “Privatization is best for all industrial sectors of society.” This belief was disproven decades ago, but is still a die-hard principle for narrow-minded, collective-phobic capitalists. Infrastructure—transportation, communication, and utilities (and perhaps postal service and health insurance)—are precisely those enterprises that are more appropriately run by centralized agencies or controlled monopolies. Only then can energy companies not be afraid of the “overinvesting” and obsolescence that could result from marketplace competition, because the government would guarantee a reasonable profit to companies like Edison, PG&E, and AT&T. That system worked well for the last hundred years prior to deregulation. Conservative critics seem to forget that President Reagan’s refusal to honor the Air Traffic Controllers strike was the very antithesis of “free market forces.” On the contrary, it epitomized the importance of a “regulated industry” for the sake of the public interest.

(3) “We should have a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’—not a government of elite experts.” This utterance is not only a rhetorical platitude, but poses a false dichotomy between expertise and popular control. What we should have—because it works best in the case of infrastructure—is a “government of experts who are accountable to the people.” This entails no opposition in principle.

(4) “Green environmental agendas have been guided by feelings and fear rather than science and cost-effectiveness.” Again, this allegation is sheer nonsense and arrogantly suggests that rational scientists would never support “green” policies. A regular reading of The Amicus Journal or the sustainability papers published by the Worldwatch Institute should demolish any suggestion that environmentalists are nonscientific or phobic. But there is a subtler fallacy entailed by this accusation: the implication that ‘facts’ and ‘fear’ are mutually exclusive, or that “if we just knew all the facts, we would have nothing to fear.” This begs the question; for it may well turn out that the facts of science justify a healthy fear.

Moreover, the free-market obsession with ‘cost-benefit analysis’ presumes that what is good for society may always be equated with, or determined by, what is cost efficient. It circumvents the “critical distance” needed in public debate by which political policy may be judged by ethical values, or what is the case may be judged by what ought to be the case—even if it costs a little more. This critical distance is crucial in questions of bioethics, such as how we should treat the poor or the elderly and infirm, the “unproductive” members of our society who no longer contribute to GDP or anyone’s “bottom line.” Environmental issues are many, and the need for sustainability is widely recognized across the political spectrum. But public policy on these matters, as on the abortion question, should not be determined only by convenience or profitability.  (More next issue....)