David Bergland on free trade and peace

Free trade is a powerful inducement to international peace.  Any time a trade barrier is removed, increased trade follows and the people who engage in it are more prosperous.  When people in different countries are able to trade freely with each other, they do not want their beneficial trade relationships interrupted by war.

It is an interesting historical fact that the U.S. government has never gone to war with another government while free trade relationships existed between them.  History also shows us that governments tend to follow the lead of other governments where trade barriers are concerned...  Removing trade restrictions would be the single most efficient way to improve the prosperity of Americans and others, and to improve the relationships between Americans and people of different countries.

~ David Bergland, Libertarianism in One Lesson, pp. 33-34

David Bergland on the reification fallacy

"Reification" is a fancy word for treating a concept or a label as something that actually exists.  The fallacy is in forgetting that the concept or label doesn't really exist, only people do.  "Government," for instance, does not exist as a thing separate from the people who make it up.  Certainly it is necessary to have a term like "government," just as we have terms like church, school, army, union, corporation, family and so on.  But, none of these labels (groups) has an existence apart from and greater than the individuals in it.

Whenever you hear someone discussing what the government, or the bureaucrats, or the big corporations, or the unions did, always ask, "Which individuals did what things?"  Only individuals can act and they should, of course, be responsible for their actions.

One purpose for engaging in this fallacy is to depersonalize people you want to mistreat.  It is much easier to call for heavy taxation of "the big corporations" than to call for reducing the dividends of the pensioners, widows, and orphans who depend on pension funds which own shares in many big corporations.  Another purpose is to argue that you, an individual, are less important than labels such as "society," so you should sacrifice your interests.

~ David Bergland, Libertarianism in One Lesson, pp. 9-10

David Bergland on the "PANG" (People Are No Good) premise

This fallacy is found in almost every argument for government regulation or intrusion into peoples' lives.  The unstated premise is that people are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest and dangerous to themselves and others.  Consider these examples: Social Security programs are necessary because people would not otherwise provide for their own future; the draft is necessary because not enough people would be willing to defend America; drug laws are necessary because without them we would be a nation of stoned-out people incapable of doing anything; compulsory school attendance laws are necessary because parents wouldn't educate their children.

The PANG premise has a huge logical hole in it.  Those who use it always exclude themselves from the class of "people" who are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest and dangerous to themselves and others.  If the PANG premise were valid, the last thing anyone would want is a large powerful government managed by such people, running your life and mine.  As one wag put it, "If people are basically good, you don't need a government; if people are basically evil, you don't dare have one."

The reality is that most people, most of the time, act properly.  They don't lie, cheat, steal, rape or murder.  Most of the time most of us act on the libertarian principle of respect for other human beings, recognizing that they have the right to control their own affairs, and expecting that they will deal with us peacefully and honestly as well.

~ David Bergland, Libertarianism in One Lesson, p. 9

David Bergland on the Utopian fallacy

This is probably the fallacy most frequently encountered in political discussions.  "Utopia" refers to the perfect society, a mythical place where everyone has everything they want all the time and nothing ever goes wrong.  There has never been such a place and never will be on this earth.  That doesn't stop the opponents of freedom from holding Utopia up as a standard.  They will contend that freedom does not guarantee that everyone will be able to achieve anything they want; some will be disappointed or frustrated and there will still be murderers, thieves, rapists and other criminals.  Because freedom does not guarantee Utopia, they argue, it should be rejected.

It is true: no advocate of freedom can guarantee Utopia.

So what?

No advocate of any political view can guarantee Utopia.

Utopia is not one of the options.  It is simply not available...

When you hear someone object to the idea of greater freedom by saying, for example, "but you cannot guarantee that all children will get a good education if we repeal compulsory school attendance laws," you are hearing the Utopian fallacy in one of its most common manifestations.

~ David Bergland, Libertarianism in One Lesson, p. 8