The real choice

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Juan Non-Volokh explains the libertarian's wariness of state intervention.

Too often policy arguments proceed as follows: A) the market “fails” because it does not produce the theoretically optimal result, therefore B) government intervention is necessary. But B does not follow from A. The failure of market processes to produce an optimal result does not ensure that the political process will do a better job. From a libertarian perspective – or any perspective that is inherently suspicious of government intervention – the burden should be on those advocating government intervention to explain why the political process can be expected to produce a better result than the marketplace.

(Emphasis Juan's)

Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber responds by turning Juan's argument on its head.

Too often policy arguments proceed as follows: A) politics “fails” because it does not produce the theoretically optimal result, therefore B) market processes are necessary. But B does not follow from A. The failure of government to produce an optimal result does not ensure that market processes will do a better job. From a social democratic perspective – or any perspective that is inherently suspicious of privatization – the burden should be on those advocating market processes to explain why the marketplace can be expected to produce a better result than the political process.

Juan's "policy argument" is a straw man. Many if not most of those who advocate government intervention do so only when there is the sufficient possibility of catastrophic results; not, as Juan would have it, because the market fails to produce an optimal result. Juan posits a Manichaean choice betweeen the state and the market in which the state is guilty until proven innocent and vice versa. By doing so, he tries to argue, like many libertarians, from A) government intervention is bad to B) market processes are good. But B does not follow from A. Being "inherently suspicious of government intervention" doesn't preclude being inherently suspicious of market processes, generally a libertarian blind spot.

Wouldn't an honest appraisal of their respective strengths and weaknesses be the healthiest attitude?