"Government gives jobs"; Analogies revealing absurdity of popular myths

[Jaromor]

Hello

 

From time to time we come across statements that we know (or feel) make no (economical, moral, ...) sense, or are outright absurd.

When I do I always wish I could come up with an analogy that points out the absurdity of given statement.

 

The most recent for me was "government gives jobs to hundreds of thousands of people".

What would be the analogy here to explain that government adds zero because it does not produce anything, makes nothing (productive) more effective?

I guess both meanings of the statement could use some addressing:

 - Government gives jobs to people (meaning people working for government)

 - Government creates jobs (by steering the economy)

Would you know, please?

 

Another one I "love" is "If you think the state is treating you like a property why don't you move out?" I heard Tom Woods making analogy in one of his videos saying it would be like your mom responding "just don't play there" when you tell her you & other kids are bullied on the playground, But maybe there's shorter version...?

 

I love this stuff so if you have your own "popular cases" (stupid statement + witty analogy), please do share them!

 

Cheers

  Jarda

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"The Mafia" analogy is a good fall back. 

The government gives thousands of jobs to people??? Well so does the mafia 

If I don't like the state I can always leave??? Well I guess if I don't like the mafia in my neighborhood I can always leave. 

[AnarchoCarpetalist]

Here's one I just thought of. In a world where cannibalism is the main form of taxation (centralized stealing of your physical body instead of just the labor from that body) the equivalent argument would be

 

Cannibalism feeds hundreds of thousands of people!

 

Yes, it is true that cannibalism feeds hundreds of thousands of people, but besides the obvious moral fact that killing and eating people without their consent is WRONG, it's a completely inefficient system that doesn't benefit most people. In order for the cannibals (people who depend on the state) to get food they have to steal someone else's life and body (their labor and assets). It's an inherently unfair and non-universal system because someone always has to lose (get eaten/be taxed) in order for someone else to benefit (eat/have a government job). Forced cannibalism inherently always steals from the productivity of the cannibalized. You will almost never get the equivalent calories from cannibalism as you will with having the people-to-be-cannibalized use their calories directly.

 

What we're advocating is that we stop the collectivized cannibalism. There's plenty of foods that you can get that aren't human meat and still meet all of the nutritional standards.

 

We don't need centralized cannibalism to get our daily protein intake just like we don't need the government for healthcare!

[Pepin]

The statement makes a lot of sense in terms of socialist theory, which states that the government ought to control the means of production. To believe full government control of production being superior to all else also mean partial government control is superior easily enabled.

 

The idea that the jobs are "given" is meant to imply that the solution to joblessness is clear and easy, and that the capitalistic system is against the giving of jobs which would provide superior services and working conditions. It is similar to the "free healthcare" line which provides an inaccurate comparison. "Would you rather have to fight tooth and nail to get the medical coverage you need to survive only to be overcharged by CEOs and corporations, or would you rather just get free healthcare?". It is designed to take any complexity out of the issue by implicitly making someone argue against it sound like they are idiots.

 

The concept that making particular jobs public releases the metaphysically stolen profit from the capitalistic system is quite present in this sort of thought, though it is more likely to be thought of as "it costs X to make Y, person A makes Z, Z is being exploited as the company is making a profit".

[HordOfTheFlies]

As a general rule for these types of arguments I've been using the broken window fallacy.  The general idea is that you explore the economic consequences of breaking a window by showing the opportunity costs lost by replacement.  I find it to be a good, simple example to explain that not all economic activity is truly desired or necessary.  I also find the quote from Milton Friedman regarding using spoons instead of shovels for a jobs program to be a good zinger.