Is there a proper name for the fallacy that assumes that because the state provides a good or service then the private sector could not or would not provide it? It seems to be the sum total if economic ignorance but I thought I saw this referred to somewhere as named fallacy. Can’t remember…
I’m interested in any answers, too.
I remember watching a video lecture on it, but I can’t remember who it was by or what it was called.
Well, it’s called ‘market failure’, and yes, it should be the ‘market failure fallacy’.
sounds a bit like argumentum ad ignorantiam, but I am not sure if in the way you worded it that it would be the right answer.
False dilemma maybe? It essentially only allows 2 possibilities: Either the State will provide X, or X will not be provided at all. It ignores other possibilities, like that some entity besides the state will provide X.
I’d say this falls under the fallacy of confusion of neccessary versus sufficient conditions.
Government (organized force) is sufficient to provide x service.
Government (organized force) is not neccessary to provide x service.
These are all good answers. But for some reason I was thinking someone coined a term for this that was outside of formal logical fallacies. Perhaps I was wrong, but thanks for the replies, though.
Public goods is what it leads to, is that what you were looking for? A public good being a something the market can’t or won’t provide.
I think the opposite of what you describe might be the public good-free rider argument. It’s pretty much this:
-
Public goods are consumed equally by all.
-
Since public goods can be consumed equally by all regardless of how much any individual person pays for them, there is little incentive for individuals to pay for them. The incentive is to be a free rider, maximizing benefit while minimizing cost.
-
Therefore, the government should provide public goods.
Fixed it.
Explain how the premises in (1) and (2) lead to your revised (3).
Explain how your premises are even correct.
I never said that the premises were correct. I didn’t create the public good-free rider argument, and I’m not sure who did.
However, if we assume premises (1) and (2) to be correct for the purposes of debate, than it’s pretty obvious that (3) doesn’t really follow.
My pleasure.
Well, 1) is false, as public goods are consumed unequally (some people drive more than others).
Your solution to the free rider problem is to force people to pay, regardless of use. (Use taxes to pay for roads, forcing both drivers and non-drivers to fund them) This doesn’t actually eliminate the free rider problem. Since people pay a set fee, regardless of use, there is still the incentive to use the good as much as possible. This problem is evident in public roads, with rush hours and traffic jams.
My solution to the free rider problem actually eliminates the problem. Privatize the road, ration the use of the road via pricing, and conjestion will not exist.