Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, IPA: /ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər/) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to be free of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[2]
Laissez-faire is supported by proponents of libertarianism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, minarchism and Objectivism. Libertarians argue that the free market produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems. The Austrian School of economics and the Chicago School of economics are important types of laissez-faire. Market anarchists take the idea of laissez-faire to its extreme by opposing all taxation, preferring law and order to be privately funded.
+
+
I fail to see in the above where the doctine of laissez-faire economics holds as one of its primary tenants that it will lead to some kind of "common good" in the context of "intolerable inequities and instability in a society".
laisez faire has failed-the great depression is a shining example.l
Capitalism cannot exist without massive gov't intervention. Markets go dry, supply runs out. It is a continuous quest for new materials. meanwhile a small minority end up in contorl of what little resources are available, monopolies deciding policy, it really is a terrible system.
laisez faire has failed-the great depression is a shining example.
How can the great depression be a shining example that "laisez faire has failed" when the economy wasn't "laisez faire" to begin with? The great depression was the fault of federal regulators at the central bank, a violation of laissez faire ideology in and of itself.
Capitalism cannot exist without massive gov't intervention. Markets go dry, supply runs out. It is a continuous quest for new materials. meanwhile a small minority end up in contorl of what little resources are available, monopolies deciding policy, it really is a terrible system.
This really doesn't make any sense. While all these things can certainly arise in a free capitalistic system, they are the very definition of a socialistic system (consumption as a right, power in the hands of a few, a singular monopoly dictating the economy).
Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, IPA: /ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər/) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to be free of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[2]
Laissez-faire is supported by proponents of libertarianism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, minarchism and Objectivism. Libertarians argue that the free market produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems. The Austrian School of economics and the Chicago School of economics are important types of laissez-faire. Market anarchists take the idea of laissez-faire to its extreme by opposing all taxation, preferring law and order to be privately funded.
+
+
I fail to see in the above where the doctine of laissez-faire economics holds as one of its primary tenants that it will lead to some kind of "common good" in the context of "intolerable inequities and instability in a society".
And I'm not sure where it is stating the the concept of a society is meaningless either. I've been reading a little bit from the teachings of Karl Popper (I'm sure you are familiar with him), who recognized that nobody has a monopoly on the truth, different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of SOCIAL organization the 'open society.' Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies. He also 'showed' that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual.
I asked you the question, because like your 'force' argument, it is my feeling that excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability. All I'm trying to say is like communism, laissez-faire capitalism, unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system (which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society) is liable to break down. I would also say that the supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate laissez-faire capitalism turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence. The resemblance to Marxism, which also claimed scientific status for its tenets, is too close for comfort.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
And I'm not sure where it is stating the the concept of a society is meaningless either. I've been reading a little bit from the teachings of Karl Popper (I'm sure you are familiar with him), who recognized that nobody has a monopoly on the truth, different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of SOCIAL organization the 'open society.' Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies. He also 'showed' that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual.
I asked you the question, because like your 'force' argument, it is my feeling that excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability. All I'm trying to say is like communism, laissez-faire capitalism, unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system (which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society) is liable to break down. I would also say that the supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate laissez-faire capitalism turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence. The resemblance to Marxism, which also claimed scientific status for its tenets, is too close for comfort.
If you feel that "excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability", then by all means participate in a system not defined by excessive individualism! I'm not suggesting that you have some obligation to participate in any system for your own good, my own good, or anyone's good. Certainly pure capitalism is fraught with potential negatives to those who hold certain values. If you wish to live by socialistic or mixed principles then do it! This isn't some kind of either/or proposition.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, IPA: /ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər/) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed to be free of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[2]
Laissez-faire is supported by proponents of libertarianism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, minarchism and Objectivism. Libertarians argue that the free market produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems. The Austrian School of economics and the Chicago School of economics are important types of laissez-faire. Market anarchists take the idea of laissez-faire to its extreme by opposing all taxation, preferring law and order to be privately funded.
+
+
I fail to see in the above where the doctine of laissez-faire economics holds as one of its primary tenants that it will lead to some kind of "common good" in the context of "intolerable inequities and instability in a society".
Capitalism cannot exist without massive gov't intervention. Markets go dry, supply runs out. It is a continuous quest for new materials. meanwhile a small minority end up in contorl of what little resources are available, monopolies deciding policy, it really is a terrible system.
How can the great depression be a shining example that "laisez faire has failed" when the economy wasn't "laisez faire" to begin with? The great depression was the fault of federal regulators at the central bank, a violation of laissez faire ideology in and of itself.
This really doesn't make any sense. While all these things can certainly arise in a free capitalistic system, they are the very definition of a socialistic system (consumption as a right, power in the hands of a few, a singular monopoly dictating the economy).
And I'm not sure where it is stating the the concept of a society is meaningless either. I've been reading a little bit from the teachings of Karl Popper (I'm sure you are familiar with him), who recognized that nobody has a monopoly on the truth, different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of SOCIAL organization the 'open society.' Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies. He also 'showed' that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual.
I asked you the question, because like your 'force' argument, it is my feeling that excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability. All I'm trying to say is like communism, laissez-faire capitalism, unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system (which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society) is liable to break down. I would also say that the supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate laissez-faire capitalism turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence. The resemblance to Marxism, which also claimed scientific status for its tenets, is too close for comfort.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
If you feel that "excessive individualism, too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability", then by all means participate in a system not defined by excessive individualism! I'm not suggesting that you have some obligation to participate in any system for your own good, my own good, or anyone's good. Certainly pure capitalism is fraught with potential negatives to those who hold certain values. If you wish to live by socialistic or mixed principles then do it! This isn't some kind of either/or proposition.
I agree with this statement. I don't necessarily vilify capitalism or socialism outright. I can see the downfalls and upsides to both systems.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein