"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacies rectified

Economics Economics Questions
1

When statists talk about improving conditions after a certain government action has been taken, libertarians tend to point to a thing called “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy: just because A happened after B, B may not have caused A.

There’s a a host of cases concerning the matter, but some are especially famous and therefore often-repeated. I’d like to know what you think caused relief in these particular instances instead of the cited examples of state intervention.

a) During the Industrial Revolution, workers had to endure low wages and harsh working conditions. Accidents at work or great age meant a decline to even more helpless poverty. Mandatory social security schemes such as public health insurance, unemployment insurance or disability insurance improved the lifes of millions of workers because now they had access to essential services which they could not afford on their own. Therewith, government provided a safety net for those unable to work due to age or accident as well as for the poor and sick. Only after creating such a secure bottom floor could society prosper as a whole, instead of just a few capitalists at the top.

(This may apply specifically to Europe, as I’m not aware of any US worker protection laws during the Industrial Age. If indeed so, we might investigate what caused positive social developments in the US, since legislation cannot be the culprit here.)

b) Racism was predominant in many parts of the US up until the second half of the 20th century. Since racist behavior has been outlawed, racist tendencies are declining which is a positive development. Libertarians would have to agree with that. In that sense, governments may be able to stir behavior into the right direction.

Please note that moral objections like “But social security is paid by taxes which is theft” or “Everybody has the right to discriminate” doesn’t get us too far here since people arguing for state intervention usually view the whole story from a utilitarian POV. As far as I understand, libertarianism claims to be superior in both a moral and a utilitarian sense. So, let’s hear the arguments: how could a free market and personal liberty solve the problems implied by pauperism and racism?

2

I learned that phrase from West Wing!

3

If people are left to solve their problems, they will come up with solutions. That’s reality. For the statist to suggest otherwise is to state that the government (comprised of people) somehow knows best how to run the lives of other people. But what makes those in government so special that they know how to do this? So clearly, it should be left up to the individuals in the situation to solve the problem. How they go about it is up to them. There’s no way to know how it will happen from our vantage point, just as there’s no way to know what you will have for breakfast on May 10, 2028.

As for “solving” racism: do the statists think that it’s really a good idea for someone to force you to associate with someone you don’t want to? What if you were forced by the government to associate with your worst enemy?