Hypocrisy is a common criticism leveled at free market advocates.
The criticism is that since free market advocates use and benefit from various forms of government programs like roads, Social Security, fire protection, Medicare, public education, libraries (I threw that one in there) and so on they are hypocrites for suggesting that such programs could be carried privately.
The implication is that unless free market advocates refuse to use these programs as a matter of principle they are not credible.
A couple examples from the last week stick out in my mind. In one, a commenter on a local blog pointed out that Ayn Rand, libertarian heroine, relied on Medicare near the end of her life.
Below is another example from the comment section at Cafe Hayek, where a commenter charges Don Boudreaux with this hypocrisy:
I take it you (and your blog buddies) vehemently oppose support of any kind of “welfare state;” though, I’m betting you have no problem with the many and various forms of corporate welfare that abound, or the state university systems which apparently provide for your education and career, or the Internet (still regulated by the GAC) which provides a very public platform for your right-wing ideology…and I could go on, but you get my point.
Don responded: “I oppose ALL government programs, including support for higher education.” Great. But, I think Don’s response is unnecessary. He took the commenter’s fallacious bait.
The hypocrisy criticism is a combo fallacy. It combines a red herring (aka ‘changing the subject’) fallacy with an ad hominem (aka ‘name calling’).
Whether Don is a hypocrite, or not, has no bearing on whether he is correct.
The roots of this combo fallacy tactic can be traced to Kindergarten recess. It should not be so becoming for supposedly well-educated and bright folks to use as adults.
The ad hominem part of this combo fallacy is a personal attack (“hypocrite”) meant to put the accused on the defensive and respond to the red herring.
If you change the topic of conversation away the merits and demerits of free market vs. government to defend yourself against the hypocrite charge, the red herring fallacy succeeds and little productive discussion will take place about the original subject.
When faced with this combo fallacy, I think it’s best to keep to the topic at hand. Here’s an example of a response that could do that:
Whether or not I’m a hypocrite has no bearing on the correctness of my point. Would you like to discuss my point?