Common False Dichotomies
Bob Murphy has unwittingly made a great contribution in his article today to a short list of common false dichotomies in the area of political economy:
The first thing to realize is that people do not decide to "spend" or not; rather, they decide whether to spend in the present versus in the future.
Here is a similar false dichotomy spotted by Hayek who wrote about the use of the term "planning" to mask what was really at stake... Who should plan? The government or individuals?:
"Planning" owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems as rationally as possible, and that in so doing we should use as much foresight as we can command... According to the modern planners, and for their purposes, it is not sufficient to design the most rational permanent framework within which the various activities would be conducted by different persons according to their individual plans. This liberal plan, according to them, is no plan..."
The Road To Serfdom, p. 36 (emphasis mine).
It has long been a habit of welfare statists to say that those who oppose government provision for the needy oppose "compassion" or "caring". So, in short, here are some common false dichotomies:
- Spend vs. Not Spend
- Plan vs. No Plan
- Compassion vs. No Compassion
What these have in common, of course, is that they are logical fallacies used in service to the growth of the State. Can you think of others?
Comments (24)
Pat
I can think of pollution vs no pollution.
Published: November 11, 2008 3:01 PM
Andy von Guerard
safety vs no safety
Published: November 11, 2008 3:34 PM
Matt H.
Pat & Andy,
Can you explain your suggestions a bit further?
Published: November 11, 2008 3:54 PM
fundamentalist
1. Bail out vs the end of the world.
2. Government redistribution vs. all poor people starve to death.
Published: November 11, 2008 3:59 PM
Charlie Perkins
Fair vs Free Market
Economic growth vs Economic inequality
Government helping Wall St vs Government helping Main St
poverty vs happiness
Published: November 11, 2008 4:24 PM
FarSide
"Government helping Wall St vs Government helping Main St"
Excellent.
Published: November 11, 2008 4:31 PM
Oil Shock
Trickle Down vs Bottom Up
Published: November 11, 2008 4:39 PM
Arend
Democratic Party vs. Republican Party
Democracy vs. Hobbes' war of all-against-all
State democracies vs. Banana Republics
Published: November 11, 2008 5:10 PM
Pat
Sure, Matt. I was referring to the environmental laws against pollution. I should have been more specific. I thought the general attitude was that without government-imposed regulation, the problems caused by pollution won't be addressed.
Published: November 11, 2008 5:18 PM
Jeff Pratt
Environmentalist vs anti-environment
Pro-affirmative action or pro-illegal immigration vs racist
Pro--public education vs anti-education
Pro-feminist vs anti-woman
The Chicago School vs Keynesianism
Obama vs McCain
Published: November 11, 2008 5:28 PM
Kristian Joensen
Government justice vs no justice.
Government police vs no police.
Government courts vs no courts.
Government roads vs no roads.
Capitalism vs the poor.
Walmart vs the world.
Profits vs fairness and justice.
Profits vs welfare.
Libertarianism vs compassion
Published: November 11, 2008 6:11 PM
erica
If someone already addressed this one, sorry.
Pro-Life
Anti-Life.
An important one because so many libertarians ARE "pro-life".
Published: November 11, 2008 6:19 PM
erica
"Government justice vs no justice.
Government police vs no police.
Government courts vs no courts.
Government roads vs no roads.
Capitalism vs the poor.
Walmart vs the world.
Profits vs fairness and justice.
Profits vs welfare.
Libertarianism vs compassion"
PERFECT!!!!
Published: November 11, 2008 6:22 PM
Ralph H
The most dangerous policy of all. Jobs vs loss of jobs.
Published: November 11, 2008 9:17 PM
Mark Humphrey
One of my favorite false dichotomies is between "economic growth" and "recession". But why is this dichotomy false?
"Economic growth" is the term that Keynesians and other political collectivists use to describe a booming economy. But the term "growth" is not an unequivacable moral value, because in many situations growth can be excessive. In fact, growth is a process that must be often monitored and, if necessary, controlled or destroyed. Cancer cells grow promiscuously; waistlines grow annoyingly; urban sprawl grows "perniciously"; carbon dioxide releases grow "danerously".
To Keynesians, there can be too much economic growth, or too little. The issue of exactly how much growth "we" should seek is supposedly understood only by wise and learned Keynesian scholars.
The primary danger that Keynesians believe they must guard against is sagging consumption, which they imagine threatens recession. To ward off this danger, they inflate the money supply and ramp up state spending. When prices rise persistently after an extended period of inflating--an economic condition Keynesians believe stems from "too much growth" or "overheating"--they slow monetary inflating and pray that the bottom doesn't fall out of the economy.
When the recession inevitably arrives--a condition of "too little growth"--they rush to pump up the money supply and ramp up state spending, until stock markets are sizzling and Goldman Sachs executives are rolling in gold.
Clearly, the dichotomy between "growth and recession" is false. What the world needs is not Keynesian administered growth, but "economic progress"--a term that has fallen almost completely out of popular usage.
Economic progress denotes the moral value of material well being and human advancement. Austrian economics properly relies on "value-free" analytical methodology to isolate cause and effect in economic relationships. But the goal and purpose of econmics is to uphold and defend the moral values of economic freedom, prosperity, and individual flourishing.
Published: November 11, 2008 11:10 PM
Slate
taxing big business vs taxing the middle class
A friend, in the midst of whining about her middle class parents losing a big portion of retirement in the stock market proposes that these greedy companies should have to pay more taxes. She goes on to say that if I don't support taxing the rich and big companies in order to giver her family a tax cut then that means I don't want her family to get some money back. I try to explain to her that by investing in the stock market her parents essentially are big business by owning it- and that taxing big business would keep the business from making more money, and thus keep the stock prices down, and thus indirectly be a tax on her parents retirement fund. She doesn't get it.
Published: November 12, 2008 1:02 AM
Lewis
Federal Education Department vs NEA and low test scores
Labor Department vs %10 unemployment
Interior Department vs $200 per barrel of oil
Federal Reserve vs Undeclared War
Published: November 12, 2008 1:27 AM
chris
how about:
free health care vs. poor old people/children?
or
anarchy vs. orderly,safe, and prosperous civilization,
energy independence vs. middle east terrorist,
war on drugs vs. helpless children
welfare vs. poor minorities
oil prices vs. inflation
price controls vs. mass poverty
wage controls vs. mass poverty
economic aid vs. starving, poor Africa.
economic barriers vs. dictators
u.s government vs. all evil in the world
job creation/job security vs. free trade/markets
and last but not least: Canada vs. u.s.
Published: November 12, 2008 4:34 AM
chris
how about:
free health care vs. poor old people/children?
or
anarchy vs. orderly,safe, and prosperous civilization,
energy independence vs. middle east terrorist,
war on drugs vs. helpless children
welfare vs. poor minorities
oil prices vs. inflation
price controls vs. mass poverty
wage controls vs. mass poverty
economic aid vs. starving, poor Africa.
economic barriers vs. dictators
u.s government vs. all evil in the world
job creation/job security vs. free trade/markets
and last but not least: Canada vs. u.s.
Published: November 12, 2008 4:34 AM
Gil
Libertarianism vs. Communism?
Actually whenever someone gets told "there's no third way" they're getting whacked with a False Dichotomy.
Published: November 12, 2008 5:43 AM
Pat
"taxing big business vs taxing the middle class"
Slate, you could also add that businesses do not get taxed, its customers do.
Published: November 12, 2008 7:32 AM
maera
Gil : "Libertarianism vs. Communism?
Actually whenever someone gets told "there's no third way" they're getting whacked with a False Dichotomy."
Don't worry, Gil, I've no doubt many "libertarians" are part of this 3rd rail. In theory, libertarianism, sounds like the perfect way to allow probablitity, human drives and the market to order society. But it's all too easy to enter such a self-directed system and distort or disrupt it.
Which brings me to another false dichotomy:
libertarianism vs respect for your enemy's right to privacy
You can't expect people to restrain their urges to violate other people's rights when there are no repercussions for doing so. The anarchy created by small groups who just expect each other to behave in a moral, principled manner will devolve into factions then fascism.
No doubt libertarianism could be an effective tool for acts of "creative destruction"/deconstruction leaving a country open to takeover by a well organized group who had hidden their own agenda under the guise of libertarian thought.
Disillusioning, isn't it?
Published: November 12, 2008 11:05 AM
Book 'em Danno
Public schooling vs. No education
Damn educrats!
Published: November 12, 2008 11:51 AM
Gil
"You can't expect people to restrain their urges to violate other people's rights when there are no repercussions for doing so. The anarchy created by small groups who just expect each other to behave in a moral, principled manner will devolve into factions then fascism. "
I believe I agree with that sentiment. If a landowner is truly a sovereign owner then that person has no duty to accept any arbitration by an outsider. For me saying "let's privatise landownership" is akin to "let's divy up a large business and each worker becomes self-employed in a way they'd replicate what they did before except better so". Personally I believe minarchism makes better sense because you'd have one government on a tight leash whereas I see 'anarcho-capitalism' as having heaps of unaccountable mini-me monarchs.
Published: November 13, 2008 2:05 AM