In any case, the argument is not fallacious, at least as I read it; it’s just partially implicit. To spell it out: Most people (not all) wouldn’t consider gov

In any case, the argument is not fallacious, at least as I read it; it’s just partially implicit. To spell it out: Most people (not all) wouldn’t consider government distortion of markets as inherently morally bad, but bad because it can cause negative outcomes, i.e. sellers away/out of business, and ultimately leave consumers with worse or more expensive goods. And certainly that’s one possible outcome, depending on the policy and the market in question. But a lot of people leap directly from “government distortion of markets” to “disastrous results”, ignoring that in other cases, the results seem to be either positive or at least not all that bad, as evidenced by a well-functioning market existing despite government intervention. An example of this - with a greater likelihood of applicability due to being in a related market sector - is the agriculture market in the US and EU, with respect to the aforementioned subsidies.