Final answer:
The Insufficiency Argument suggests that legal actions are not inherently morally permissible and that the pursuit of self-interest does not guarantee the common good due to potential conflict between individual interests. It also questions the notion that economic egalitarianism is either exclusively good or bad, stressing the importance of balancing various ethical and economic factors.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Insufficiency Argument reflects a critical view of certain ethical and economic principles. According to this argument, it is not sufficient to say that egoism or the pursuit of individual interests will inherently lead to the common good, as Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' might suggest. This is because individual interests can come into conflict, particularly in situations where resources are scarce. Therefore, the notion that 'anything legal is morally permissible' is flawed since legal actions can still result in immoral outcomes when they harm the interests of others.
Additionally, the argument highlights that economic systems that value only efficiency and self-interest can lead to inequalities that undermine both equality and liberty. Therefore, proposals like economic egalitarianism, which aims for some level of material equality, are seen not as unequivocally bad or good but rather require balancing against other values, such as economic output and liberty.
This nuanced understanding defies the rigid categorization of the Insufficiency Argument into a simple position of 'good' or 'bad.' It rather points towards a complex interplay of moral, legal, and economic considerations that resist simplistic conclusions.