Which of the following is the most misleading myth about the ‘broken window fallacy’?

Broken window fallacy is a myth that the law of unintended consequences can be used to justify unjustified law.

The myth originated in the US in the late 19th century, but was widely used in Britain, where it was first introduced by William Farrar.

The fallacy states that the laws of unintended consequence can be abused by an unjustified government to justify a law that it is not in its power to enforce.

This means that if a law is a violation of the rights of a particular group, it will be upheld even if it does not actually infringe on the rights that the group has, or that it has a legitimate reason for.

The law may be unjustified in the sense that it would be likely to have a discriminatory effect on certain groups, but in the other sense, it is a law of natural justice, which means it is morally permissible in the circumstances.

The idea that a law might be lawful because it is justified by an unintended consequence, however, does not hold in the same way in the real world.

Laws that have been passed to protect individuals or to punish certain groups may be morally permissible, but they cannot be justified as a matter of law.