In Part 1, we briefly examined the prevalence of false alternatives in controversial political issues. In Part 2, we examined how to identify false alternatives. In this post, we will look at one of the most common ways in which false alternatives are presented.
One of the most common ways in which false alternatives are presented is to claim that a current problem is the result of capitalism or the free market. We are then presented with the alternative of the current “free market” or more government controls and regulations.
Such claims ignore the massive government regulations that plague most industries. For example, when housing costs soar because of zoning and other land-use regulations, legislators typically respond by blaming greedy developers and then propose more regulations. They seldom, if ever, suggest loosening the controls and restrictions despite overwhelming evidence that regulations are a primary cause of rising housing costs.
In such situations, we are presented with the “alternatives” of lots of regulations and even more regulations. But this isn’t even a real alternative. It is simply a debate over the extent of government control over land use. The real alternative would be a true free market.
We see this tactic used time after time, in industry after industry. From housing to health care, from fossil fuels to finance, from agriculture to mining, governments at every level impose controls and regulations on businesses and then blame the businesses (the free market) when the results aren’t what the politicians and bureaucrats desire.
If we want to reach the best decisions regarding problems and issues, then we should consider all of the alternatives. And that includes true free market alternatives. But when the free market is misrepresented, then an open and honest discussion cannot occur. When free market solutions are casually dismissed without discussion, then we cannot be certain that we are making the best choices.
Granted, free market solutions aren’t always obvious. But free market solutions aren’t even possible when government controls and regulations stifle and hamper entrepreneurs. By their very nature, entrepreneurs challenge the status quo and the conventional wisdom. By their very nature, government controls and regulations impose the status quo and conventional wisdom by force.
With even a small amount of freedom, entrepreneurs throughout history have demonstrated that they can and will provide the values that make individual flourishing possible. For examples of how free individuals solve problems and enhance individual flourishing, see my books The Innovator Versus the Collective and Individual Rights and Government Wrongs.
If we want to make the best policy decisions, then we must consider all of the alternatives. Then, and only then, can we choose the policies that will best promote and enable individual flourishing.