Jump to content

Laissez-faire

Listen to this article
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromLaissez faire)
Part ofa serieson
Economic systems
Major types
By ideology
By coordination
By regional model
Sectors
Property types
Transition
Coordination
Other types
Part ofa serieson
Capitalism
Concepts
Economic systems
Economic theories
Origins
Development
Intellectuals
Related topics
Ideologies
Part of thepolitics serieson
Neoliberalism
Ideas
Economics
Movements
Governance
Organizations
People
Related topics
Part ofa serieson
Liberalism
Schools
Principles
History
Philosophers
Politicians
Organizations
Regional variants
Related topics
Part ofa serieson
Libertarianism
Concepts
Issues
Philosophers
Politicians
National variants
Historical background
Related topics

Laissez-faire(/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/LESS-ay-FAIR;or/lɑːˌsɛzˈfɛ.jər/,from French:laissez faire[lɛsefɛːʁ]ⓘ,lit. 'let do') is a type ofeconomic systemin which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form ofeconomic interventionism(such assubsidiesorregulations). As a system of thought,laissez-fairerests on the following axioms: "the individual is the basic unit in society, i.e., the standard of measurement in social calculus; the individual has a natural right to freedom; and the physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system."[1]The original phrase waslaissez faire, laissez passer,with the second part meaning "let (things) pass". It is generally attributed toVincent de Gournay.[2]

Another basic principle oflaissez-faireholds that markets should naturally becompetitive,a rule that the early advocates oflaissez-fairealways emphasized.[1]

ThePhysiocratswere early advocates oflaissez-faireand advocated for aimpôt unique,atax on land rentto replace the "monstrous and crippling network of taxation that had grown up in 17th century France".[3]Their view was that only land should be taxed because land is not produced but a naturally existing resource, meaning a tax on it wouldn't be taking from the labour of the taxed, unlike most other taxes.[4][clarification needed]

Proponents oflaissez-faireargue for a near complete separation of government from the economic sector.[5][verification needed]The phraselaissez-faireis part of a larger French phrase and literally translates to "let [it/them] do", but in this context the phrase usually means to "let it be" and in expression "laid back".[6]Although never practiced with full consistency,laissez-fairecapitalismemerged in the mid-18th century and was further popularized byAdam Smith's bookThe Wealth of Nations.[7][8]

Etymology and usage

[edit]

The termlaissez-fairelikely originated in a meeting that took place around 1681 between powerful FrenchController-General of FinancesJean-Baptiste Colbertand a group of French businessmen headed by M. Le Gendre. When the eagermercantilistminister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants and help promote their commerce, Le Gendre replied simply: "Laissez-nous faire" ( "Leave it to us" or "Let us do [it]", the French verb not requiring anobject).[9]

The anecdote on the Colbert–Le Gendre meeting appeared in a 1751 article in theJournal économique,written by French minister and champion offree tradeRené de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson—also the first known appearance of the term in print.[10]Argenson himself had used the phrase earlier (1736) in his own diaries in a famous outburst:

Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé [...]. Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du cœur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l'intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!![11]

Let go, which should be the motto of all public power, since the world was civilized [...]. [It is] a detestable principle of those that want to enlarge [themselves] but by the abasement of our neighbours. There is but the wicked and the malignant heart[s] [who are] satisfied by this principle and [its] interest is opposed. Let go, for God's sake! Let go!![12]

— René Louis de Voyer de Paulmy d'Argenson

Vincent de Gournay,a FrenchPhysiocratand intendant of commerce in the 1750s, popularized the termlaissez-faireas he allegedly adopted it fromFrançois Quesnay's writings on China.[13]Quesnay coined the phraseslaissez-faireandlaissez-passer,[14]laissez-fairebeing a translation of the Chinese termwu wei( vô vi ).[15]Gournay ardently supported the removal of restrictions on trade and the deregulation of industry in France. Delighted with the Colbert–Le Gendre anecdote,[16]he forged it into a larger maxim all his own: "Laissez faire et laissez passer" ( "Let do and let pass" ). His motto has also been identified as the longer "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" ( "Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!" ). Although Gournay left no written tracts on his economic policy ideas, he had immense personal influence on his contemporaries, notably his fellow Physiocrats, who credit both thelaissez-faireslogan and the doctrine to Gournay.[17]

Before d'Argenson or Gournay,P. S. de Boisguilberthad enunciated the phrase "On laisse faire la nature" ( "Let nature run its course" ).[18]D'Argenson himself during his life was better known for the similar, but less-celebrated motto "Pas trop gouverner" ( "Govern not too much" ).[19]

The Physiocrats proclaimedlaissez-fairein 18th-century France, placing it at the very core of their economic principles and famous economists, beginning withAdam Smith,developed the idea.[20]It is with the Physiocrats and the classicalpolitical economythat the termlaissez-faireis ordinarily associated.[21]The bookLaissez Faire and the General-Welfare Statestates: "The physiocrats, reacting against the excessive mercantilist regulations of the France of their day, expressed a belief in a 'natural order' or liberty under which individuals in following their selfish interests contributed to the general good. Since, in their view, this natural order functioned successfully without the aid of government, they advised the state to restrict itself to upholding the rights of private property and individual liberty, to removing all artificial barriers to trade, and to abolishing all useless laws."[20]

The French phraselaissez-fairegained currency in English-speaking countries with the spread of Physiocratic literature in the late 18th century.George Whatley's 1774Principles of Trade(co-authored withBenjamin Franklin) re-told the Colbert-LeGendre anecdote; this may mark the first appearance of the phrase in an English-language publication.[22]

Herbert Spencerwas opposed to a slightly different application oflaissez faire—to "that miserablelaissez-faire"that leads to men's ruin, saying:" Along with that miserablelaissez-fairewhich calmly looks on while men ruin themselves in trying to enforce by law their equitable claims, there goes activity in supplying them, at other men's cost, with gratis novel-reading! "[23]

As a product of theEnlightenment,laissez-fairewas "conceived as the way to unleash human potential through the restoration of a natural system, a system unhindered by the restrictions of government".[1]In a similar vein, Adam Smith[when?]viewed the economy as a natural system and the market as an organic part of that system. Smith sawlaissez-faireas a moral program and the market its instrument to ensure men the rights ofnatural law.[1]By extension,free marketsbecome a reflection of the natural system of liberty.[1]For Smith,laissez-fairewas "a program for the abolition of laws constraining the market, a program for the restoration of order and for the activation of potential growth".[1]

However, Smith[24]and notableclassical economistssuch asThomas MalthusandDavid Ricardodid not use the phrase.Jeremy Benthamused the term, but it was probably[original research?]James Mill's reference to thelaissez-fairemaxim (together with the "Pas trop gouverner" motto) in an 1824 entry for theEncyclopædia Britannicathat really brought the term into wider English usage. With the advent of theAnti-Corn Law League(founded 1838), the term received much of its English meaning.[25][need quotation to verify]

Smith first used the metaphor of aninvisible handin his bookThe Theory of Moral Sentiments(1759) to describe the unintentional effects of economic self-organization from economic self-interest.[26]Although not the metaphor itself, the idea lying behind the invisible hand belongs toBernard de Mandevilleand hisFable of the Bees(1705). In political economy, that idea and the doctrine oflaissez-fairehave long been closely related.[27]Some have characterized the invisible-hand metaphor as one forlaissez-faire,[28]although Smith never actually used the term himself.[24]InThird Millennium Capitalism(2000), Wyatt M. Rogers Jr. notes a trend whereby recently "conservative politicians and economists have chosen the term 'free-market capitalism' in lieu oflaissez-faire".[29]

Americanindividualist anarchistssuch asBenjamin Tuckersaw themselves as economiclaissez-fairesocialists and political individualists while arguing that their "anarchistic socialism" or "individual anarchism" was "consistentManchesterism".[30]

History

[edit]

Europe

[edit]
Main article:Economic liberalism
See also:Classical liberalism

In Europe, thelaissez-fairemovement was first widely promoted by thePhysiocrats,a movement that includedVincent de Gournay(1712–1759), a successful merchant turned political figure. Gournay is postulated to have adapted the Taoist conceptwu wei,[31]from the writings on China byFrançois Quesnay[15](1694–1774). Gournay held that government should allow thelaws of natureto govern economic activity, with the state only intervening to protect life, liberty and property.François QuesnayandAnne Robert Jacques Turgot,Baron de l'Aulne took up Gournay's ideas. Quesnay had the ear of the King of France,Louis XVand in 1754 persuaded him to givelaissez-fairea try. On September 17, the King abolished all tolls and restraints on the sale and transport of grain. For more than a decade, the experiment appeared successful, but 1768 saw a poor harvest, and the cost of bread rose so high that there was widespread starvation while merchants exported grain to obtain the best profit. In 1770, theComptroller-General of FinancesJoseph Marie Terrayrevoked the edict allowing free trade in grain.[32]

The doctrine oflaissez-fairebecame an integral part of19th-century European liberalism.[20]Just as liberals supportedfreedom of thoughtin the intellectual sphere, so were they equally prepared to champion the principles offree tradeandfree competitionin the sphere of economics, seeing the state as merely apassive policeman,protectingprivate propertyand administering justice, but not interfering with the affairs of its citizens. Businessmen, British industrialists in particular, were quick to associate these principles with their own economic interests.[20]Many of the ideas of the physiocrats spread throughout Europe and were adopted to a greater or lesser extent in Sweden, Tuscany, Spain and in the newly created United States.Adam Smith,author ofThe Wealth of Nations(1776), met Quesnay and acknowledged his influence.[33]

In Britain, the newspaperThe Economist(founded in 1843) became an influential voice forlaissez-fairecapitalism.[34]Laissez-faireadvocates opposed food aid for famines occurring within theBritish Empire.In 1847, referring to the famine then underway in Ireland, founder ofThe EconomistJames Wilsonwrote: "It is no man's business to provide for another".[35]More specifically, inAn Essay on the Principle of Population,Malthusargued that there was nothing that could be done to avoid famines because he felt he had mathematically proven that population growth tends to exceed growth in food production. However,The Economistcampaigned against theCorn Lawsthat protected landlords in theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelandagainst competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products. TheGreat Faminein Ireland in 1845 led to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high were repealed.[36]However, repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop the Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years.[37]

A group that became known as theManchester Liberals,to whichRichard Cobden(1804–1865) andJohn Bright(1811–1889) belonged, were staunch defenders of free trade. After the death of Cobden, theCobden Club(founded in 1866) continued their work.[38]The breakdown oflaissez-faireas practised by the British Empire was partly led by British companies eager for state support of their positions abroad, in particular British oil companies.[39]

In Italy, philosopherBenedetto Crocecreated the term "liberism" (derived from the Italian termliberismo), a term for theeconomic doctrineoflaissez-fairecapitalism;it is synonymous witheconomic liberalism.He claimed that "Liberalism can prove only a temporary right of private propriety of land and industries."[40]It was popularized in English by Italian political scientistGiovanni Sartori.[41]Sartori specifically imported the term from Italian to distinguish betweensocial liberalism,which is generally considered apolitical ideologyoften advocating extensive government intervention in the economy, and thoseeconomic liberaltheories that propose to virtually eliminate such intervention. In informal usage, liberism overlaps with other concepts such asfree trade,neoliberalism,right-libertarianism,the American concept oflibertarianism,[42]and thelaissez-fairedoctrine of the French liberalDoctrinaires.The intention of Croce and of Sartori to attack the right to private property and to free enterprise separating them from the general philosophy of liberalism, that is primarily a theory of natural rights, was always criticised openly by the quoted philosophers and by some of the main representatives of liberalism, such asLuigi Einaudi,Friedrich Hayek,[42][43][44]andMilton Friedman.[45]TheAustrian SchooleconomistEugen von Böhm-Bawerkargues that the differences between the economical concept of liberism[46]and the economical consequences of liberalism[47][48]can be summarized by saying that "A market is a law system. Without it, the only possible economy is the street robbery."[49]

United States

[edit]
Main article:Liberalism in the United States

Frank Bourgin's study of theConstitutional Conventionand subsequent decades argues that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by theFounding Fathers.[50]The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under theArticles of Confederation.The goal was to ensure that dearly-won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce was seen as an essential means ofpromoting the general welfareand making theeconomy of the United Statesstrong enough for them to determine their own destiny. Others view Bourgin's study, written in the 1940s and not published until 1989, as an over-interpretation of the evidence, intended originally to defend the New Deal and later to counterRonald Reagan's economic policies.[51]

Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that in the 19th centuryliberalism in the United Stateshad distinctive characteristics and that "at the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea oflaissez-faire.To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however,laissez-fairedid not mean "no government intervention" at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers ". Notable examples of government intervention in the period prior to theAmerican Civil Warinclude the establishment of thePatent Officein 1802; the establishment of the Office of Standard Weights and Measures in 1830; the creation of the Survey of the Coast (later renamed the United States Coast Survey and then theUnited States Coast and Geodetic Survey) in 1807 and other measures to improve river and harbor navigation; the variousArmyexpeditions to the west, beginning withLewis and Clark'sCorps of Discoveryin 1804 and continuing into the 1870s, almost always under the direction of an officer from the ArmyCorps of Topographical Engineersand which provided crucial information for the overland pioneers that followed; the assignment of Army Engineer officers to assist or direct the surveying and construction of the early railroads and canals; and the establishment of theFirst Bank of the United StatesandSecond Bank of the United Statesas well as various protectionist measures (e.g. thetariff of 1828). Several of these proposals met with serious opposition and required a great deal of horse-trading to be enacted into law. For instance, the First National Bank would not have reached the desk of PresidentGeorge Washingtonin the absence of an agreement that was reached betweenAlexander Hamiltonand several Southern members of Congress to locate the capitol in theDistrict of Columbia.In contrast to Hamilton and theFederalistswasThomas JeffersonandJames Madison's opposing political party, theDemocratic-Republicans.

Most of the early opponents oflaissez-fairecapitalism in the United States subscribed to theAmerican School.This school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Hamilton, who proposed the creation of agovernment-sponsored bankand increased tariffs to favor Northern industrial interests. Following Hamilton's death, the more abidingprotectionistinfluence in the antebellum period came fromHenry Clayand hisAmerican System.In the early 19th century, "it is quite clear that thelaissez-fairelabel is an inappropriate one "to apply to the relationship between the United States government and industry.[52]In the mid-19th century, the United States followed theWhigtradition ofeconomic nationalism,which included increased state control, regulation andmacroeconomicdevelopment of infrastructure.[53]Public workssuch as the provision and regulation transportation such as railroads took effect. ThePacific Railway Actsprovided the development of theFirst transcontinental railroad.[53][54]To help pay for its war effort in the Civil War, theUnited States governmentimposed its first personalincome taxon 5 August 1861 as part of theRevenue Act of 1861(3% of all incomes over US$800; rescinded in 1872).

Following the Civil War, the movement towards amixed economyaccelerated. Protectionism increased with theMcKinley Tariffof 1890 and theDingley Tariffof 1897.Government regulationof the economy expanded with the enactment of theInterstate Commerce Act of 1887and theSherman Anti-trust Act.TheProgressive Erasaw the enactment of more controls on the economy as evidenced by theWoodrow Wilsonadministration'sNew Freedomprogram. FollowingWorld War Iand theGreat Depression,the United States turned to a mixed economy which combinedfree enterprisewith aprogressive income taxand in which from time to time the government stepped in to support and protect American industry from competition from overseas. For example, in the 1980s the government sought to protect the automobile industry by "voluntary" export restrictions from Japan.[55]

In 1986, Pietro S. Nivola wrote: "By and large, the comparative strength of the dollar against major foreign currencies has reflected high U.S. interest rates driven by huge federal budget deficits. Hence, the source of much of the current deterioration of trade is not the general state of the economy, but rather the government's mix of fiscal and monetary policies – that is, the problematic juxtaposition of bold tax reductions, relatively tight monetary targets, generous military outlays, and only modest cuts in major entitlement programs. Put simply, the roots of the trade problem and of the resurgent protectionism it has fomented are fundamentally political as well as economic".[56]

A more recent advocate of totallaissez-fairehas beenObjectivistAyn Rand,who described it as "the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State".[57]This viewpoint is summed up in what is known as the iron law of regulation, which is a theory stating that all government economic regulation eventually leads to a net loss in social welfare.[58]Rand's political philosophy emphasizedindividual rights(includingproperty rights)[59]and she consideredlaissez-fairecapitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[60]She opposedstatism,which she understood to includetheocracy,absolute monarchy,Nazism,fascism,communism,socialismand dictatorship.[61]Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[62]Although her political views are often classified asconservativeorlibertarian,she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[63]She denouncedlibertarianism,which she associated withanarchism.[64]She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based insubjectivismthat could only lead to collectivism in practice.[65]

Models

[edit]

Capitalism

[edit]
Main article:Capitalism
See also:Neoliberalism

A closely related name forlaissez-fairecapitalism is that of raw, pure, or unrestrained capitalism, which refers to capitalism free of any regulations,[66]with low or minimal[67]government and operating almost entirely on theprofit motive.It shares a similar economic conception withanarcho-capitalism.

Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism argue that it relies on a constitutionally limited government that unconditionally bans the initiation of force and coercion, including fraud. Therefore, free market economists such as Milton Friedman andThomas Sowellargue that, under such a system, relationships between companies and workers are purely voluntary and mistreated workers will seek better treatment elsewhere. Thus, most companies will compete for workers on the basis of pay, benefits, and work-life balance just as they compete with one another in the marketplace on the basis of the relative cost and quality of their goods.[68][non-primary source needed][69][non-primary source needed]

So-called "raw" or "hyper-capitalism" is a majormotifofcyberpunkin dystopian works such asSyndicate.[70][71]

Socialism

[edit]
Main article:Socialism
See also:Free-market anarchism,Market socialism,andSocialist economics

Althoughlaissez-fairehas been commonly associated withcapitalism,there is a similarlaissez-faireeconomic theory and system associated with socialism called left-winglaissez-faire,[72][73]orfree-market anarchism,also known asfree-market anti-capitalismandfree-market socialismto distinguish it fromlaissez-fairecapitalism.[74][75][76]One first example of this ismutualismas developed byPierre-Joseph Proudhonin the 18th century, from which emergedindividualist anarchism.Benjamin Tuckeris one eminentAmerican individualist anarchistwho adopted alaissez-fairesystem he termedanarchistic socialismin contraposition tostate socialism.[77][78]This tradition has been recently associated with contemporary scholars such asKevin Carson,[79][80]Roderick T. Long,[81][82]Charles W. Johnson,[83]Brad Spangler,[84]Sheldon Richman,[85][86][87]Chris Matthew Sciabarra[88]andGary Chartier,[89]who stress the value of radically free markets, termedfreed marketsto distinguish them from the common conception which theseleft-libertariansbelieve to be riddled withcapitalistandstatistprivileges.[90]Referred to as left-wing market anarchists[91]or market-oriented left-libertarians,[87]proponents of this approach strongly affirm theclassical liberalideas ofself-ownershipandfree marketswhile maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas supportanti-capitalist,anti-corporatist,anti-hierarchicalandpro-laborpositions in economics;anti-imperialismin foreign policy; and thoroughly radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race.[92][93]Critics oflaissez-faireas commonly understood argues that a trulylaissez-fairesystem would be anti-capitalist and socialist.[94][95]

Kevin Carson describes his politics as on "the outer fringes of both free marketlibertarianismandsocialism"[96]and has also been highly critical of intellectual property.[97]Carson has identified the work of Benjamin Tucker,Thomas Hodgskin,Ralph Borsodi,Paul Goodman,Lewis Mumford,Elinor Ostrom,Peter KropotkinandIvan Illichas sources of inspiration for his approach to politics and economics.[98]In addition to individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker's big four monopolies (land, money, tariffs and patents), he argues that thestatehas also transferred wealth to the wealthy by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies. Carson believes that Tucker overlooked this issue due to Tucker's focus on individual market transactions whereas he also focuses on organizational issues. As such, the primary focus of his most recent work has been decentralized manufacturing and the informal and household economies.[99]The theoretical sections of Carson'sStudies in Mutualist Political Economyare also presented as an attempt to integratemarginalistcritiques into thelabor theory of value.[100]

In response to claims that he uses the term capitalism incorrectly, Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect what he claims to be an old definition of the term to "make a point". He claims that "the term 'capitalism,' as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf".[101]Carson holds that "capitalism, arising as a new class society directly from the old class society of theMiddle Ages,was founded on an act of robbery as massive as the earlierfeudalconquest of the land. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its survival is unimaginable ".[102]Carson argues that in a trulylaissez-fairesystem the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible.[103]Carson coined thepejorativeterm vulgar libertarianism, a phrase that describes the use of a free market rhetoric in defense ofcorporate capitalismandeconomic inequality.According to Carson, the term is derived from the phrase vulgar political economy whichKarl Marxdescribed as an economic order that "deliberately becomes increasingly apologetic and makes strenuous attempts to talk out of existence the ideas which contain the contradictions [existing in economic life]".[104]

Gary Chartier offers an understanding ofproperty rightsas contingent yet tightly constrained social strategies, reflective of the importance of multiple, overlapping rationales for separateownershipand ofnatural lawprinciples of practical reasonableness, defending robust yet non-absolute protections for these rights in a manner similar to that employed byDavid Hume.[105]This account is distinguished both fromLockeanand neo-Lockean views which deduce property rights from the idea of self-ownership and fromconsequentialistaccounts that might license widespread ad hoc interference with the possessions of groups and individuals.[106]Chartier uses this account to ground a clear statement of the natural law basis for the view that solidaristic wealthredistributionby individual persons is often morally required, but as a response by individuals and grass-roots networks to particular circumstances rather than as a state-driven attempt to achieve a particular distributive pattern.[107]He advances detailed arguments forworkplace democracyrooted in such natural law principles assubsidiarity,[108]defending it as morally desirable and as a likely outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something to be mandated by the state.[109]

Chartier has discussed natural law approaches toland reformand to theoccupation of factoriesby workers.[110]He objects on natural law grounds to intellectual property protections, drawing on his theory of property rights more generally[111]and develops a general natural law account ofboycotts.[112]He has argued that proponents of genuinely freed markets should explicitly reject capitalism and identify with the global anti-capitalist movement while emphasizing that the abuses the anti-capitalist movement highlights result from state-tolerated violence and state-secured privilege rather than from voluntary cooperation and exchange. According to Chartier, "it makes sense for [freed-market advocates] to name what they oppose 'capitalism.' Doing so calls attention to the freedom movement's radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren't confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary people around the world who use" capitalism "as a short-hand label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their lives".[102][113]

Criticism

[edit]
Further information:Criticism of capitalism

Over the years, a number of economists have offered critiques oflaissez-faireeconomics.Adam Smithacknowledges some moral ambiguities towards the system of capitalism.[114]Smith had misgivings concerning some aspects of each of the major character-types produced by modern capitalist society, namely the landlords, the workers and the capitalists.[114]Smith claimed that "[t]he landlords' role in the economic process is passive. Their ability to reap a revenue solely from ownership oflandtends to make them indolent and inept, and so they tend to be unable to even look after their own economic interests "[114]and that "[t]he increase in population should increase the demand for food, which should increase rents, which should be economically beneficial to the landlords". According to Smith, the landlords should be in favour of policies which contribute to the growth in the wealth of nations, but they often are not in favour of these pro-growth policies because of their own indolent-induced ignorance and intellectual flabbiness.[114]Smith stated clearly that he believed that without morality and laws, society would fail. From that perspective, it seems dubious that Smith supported a pure Laissez-Faire style of capitalism, and the ideas he supports inThe Wealth of Nationsis heavily dependent on the moral philosophy from his previous work,Theory of Moral Sentiment.[115]

Many philosophers have written on the systems society has created to manage their civilizations.Thomas Hobbesused the concept of a "state of nature",which is a time before any government or laws, as a starting point to consider the question. In this time, life would be"war of all against all".Further," In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain... continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. "[116]

Regardless of preferred political preference, all societies require shared moral values as a prerequisite on which to build laws to protect individuals from each other. Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations during the Enlightenment, a period of time when the prevailing attitude was, "All things can be Known." In effect, European thinkers, inspired by the likes of Isaac Newton and others, set about to "find the laws" of all things, that there existed a "natural law" underlying all aspects of life. They believed that these could be discovered and that everything in the universe could be rationally demystified and catalogued, including human interactions.[117]

Critics andmarket abolitionistssuch asDavid McNallyargue in the Marxist tradition that the logic of the market inherently produces inequitable outcomes and leads to unequal exchanges, arguing that Smith's moral intent and moral philosophy espousing equal exchange was undermined by the practice of the free market he championed. According to McNally, the development of themarket economyinvolved coercion, exploitation and violence that Smith's moral philosophy could not countenance.[118]

The British economistJohn Maynard Keynescondemnedlaissez-faireeconomic policy on several occasions.[119]InThe End of Laissez-faire(1926), one of the most famous of his critiques, Keynes argues that the doctrines oflaissez-faireare dependent to some extent on improper deductive reasoning and says the question of whether a market solution or state intervention is better must be determined on a case-by-case basis.[120]

TheAustrian SchooleconomistFriedrich Hayekstated that a freely competitive,laissez-fairebanking industry tends to be endogenously destabilizing and pro-cyclical, arguing that the need forcentral bankingcontrol was inescapable.[121]

Karl Polanyi'sGreat Transformationcriticizes self-regulating markets as aberrational, unnatural phenomena which tend towards social disruption.[122][123]

In modern economics laissez-faire typically has a bad connotation, which hints towards a perceived need for restraint due to social needs and securities that can not be adequately responded to by companies with just a motive for making profit.

Robert Kuttnerstates that "for over a century, popular struggles in democracies have used thenation-stateto temper raw capitalism. The power of voters has offset the power of capital. But as national barriers have come down in the name of freer commerce, so has the capacity of governments to manage capitalism in a broad public interest. So the real issue is not 'trade' but democratic governance ".[124]

The main issues of raw capitalism are said to lie in its disregard for quality,durability,sustainability,respect for theenvironmentand human beings as well as a lack ofmorality.[125]From this more critical angle, companies might naturally aim to maximise profits at the expense of workers' and broader social interests.[126]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdefGaspard, Toufick.A Political Economy of Lebanon 1948–2002: The Limits of Laissez-faire.Boston: Brill, 2004.ISBN978-90-04-13259-7[page needed]
  2. ^Ellen Judy Wilson; Peter Hanns Reill (1 August 2004).Encyclopedia Of The Enlightenment.Infobase Publishing. p. 241.ISBN978-0-8160-5335-3.Archivedfrom the original on 23 July 2023.Retrieved21 July2012.
  3. ^Rothbard, Murray (1995).An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 371.ISBN0-945466-48-X.
  4. ^Gaffney, Mason."The Taxable Surplus of Land: Measuring, Guarding and Gathering It".Archived fromthe originalon 10 May 2015.Retrieved9 December2014.
  5. ^Quick Reference Handbook Set, Basic Knowledge and Modern Technology (revised) byEdward H. Litchfield,PhD
  6. ^"Laissez-faire"Archived2015-09-27 at theWayback Machine,Business Dictionary.
  7. ^Edward H. Litchfield."Quick Reference Handbook Set, Basic Knowledge and Modern Technology" (revised ed.).
  8. ^"Adam Smith".Encyclopædia Britannica.Archivedfrom the original on 12 April 2020.Retrieved12 April2020.
  9. ^"Journal Oeconomique"Archived2020-04-30 at theWayback Machine.1751 article by the French minister of finance.
  10. ^M. d'Argenson, "Lettre au sujet de la dissertation sur le commerce du marquis de Belloni', Avril 1751,Journal Oeconomiquep. 111Archived2022-10-26 at theWayback Machine.See A. Oncken,Die Maxime Laissez faire et laissez passer, ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden,1866
  11. ^As quoted in J. M. Keynes, 1926, "The End of Laissez Faire". Argenson'sMémoirswere published only in 1858, ed. Jannet, Tome V, p. 362. See A. Oncken (Die Maxime Laissez faire et laissez passer, ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden,1866).
  12. ^Original somewhat literal translation using theFrench WiktionaryArchived2019-06-05 at theWayback Machine.
  13. ^Baghdiantz McCabe, Ina (2008).Orientalism in Early Modern France: Eurasian Trade Exoticism and the Ancien Regime.Berg Publishers. pp. 271–272.ISBN978-1-84520-374-0.
  14. ^"Encyclopædia Britannica".Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 31 May 2023.Archivedfrom the original on 22 May 2015.Retrieved23 June2022.
  15. ^abClarke, J. J. (1997).Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and Western Thought.Routledge. p. 50.ISBN978-0-415-13376-0.
  16. ^According to J.Turgot's "Eloge de Vincent de Gournay,"Mercure,August, 1759 (repr. inOeuvres of Turgot,vol. 1p. 288Archived2022-11-12 at theWayback Machine.
  17. ^Gournay was credited with the phrase byJacques Turgot( "Eloge a Gournay",Mercure1759), theMarquis de Mirabeau(Philosophie rurale1763 andEphémérides du Citoyen,1767.), the Comte d'Albon ( "Éloge Historique de M. Quesnay",Nouvelles Ephémérides Économiques,May, 1775, pp. 136–137) andDuPont de Nemours(Introduction toOeuvres de Jacques Turgot,1808–11, Vol. I, pp. 257, 259, Daire ed.) among others.
  18. ^"Tant, encore une fois, qu'on laisse faire la nature, on ne doit rien craindre de pareil", P.S. de Boisguilbert, 1707,Dissertation de la nature des richesses, de l'argent et des tributs.
  19. ^DuPont de Nemours,op cit,p. 258. Oncken (op.cit) and Keynes (op.cit.) also credit the Marquis d'Argenson with the phrase "Pour gouverner mieux, il faudrait gouverner moins"(" To govern best, one needs to govern less "), possibly the source of the famous" That government is best which governs least "motto popular in American circles, attributed variously toThomas Paine,Thomas JeffersonandHenry Thoreau.
  20. ^abcdFine, Sidney.Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State.United States: The University of Michigan Press, 1964. Print
  21. ^Macgregor,Economic Thought and Policy(London, 1949), pp. 54–67
  22. ^Whatley'sPrinciples of Tradeare reprinted inWorks of Benjamin Franklin, Vol.2,p. 401Archived2022-11-12 at theWayback Machine.
  23. ^Justice Part IV of Ethics(1892). p. 44.
  24. ^abRoy C. Smith,Adam Smith and the Origins of American Enterprise: How the Founding Fathers Turned to a Great Economist's Writings and Created the American Economy,Macmillan, 2004,ISBN0-312-32576-2,pp. 13–14.
  25. ^Abbott P. Usher; et al. (1931). "Economic History – The Decline of Laissez Faire".American Economic Review.22(1, supplement): 3–10.
  26. ^Andres Marroquin,Invisible Hand: The Wealth of Adam Smith,The Minerva Group, Inc., 2002,ISBN1-4102-0288-7,p. 123.
  27. ^John Eatwell,The Invisible Hand,W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, pp. Preface, x1.
  28. ^The mathematical century: the 30 greatest problems of the last 100 years (2006) Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Arturo Sangalli, Freeman J Dyson, p. 122.Princeton University Press. 22 October 2006.ISBN978-0-691-12805-4.Retrieved30 July2013.
  29. ^Rogers, Wyatt M. (2000)."1: Economic Forces in Modern Capitalism".Third Millennium Capitalism: Convergence of Economic, Energy, and Environmental Forces.ABC-Clio ebook. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 38.ISBN978-1-56720-360-8.Retrieved30 December2016.
  30. ^Tucker, Benjamin (1926).Individual Liberty: Selections from the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker.New York: Vanguard Press. pp. 1–19.[ISBN missing]
  31. ^Christian Gerlach,Wu-Wei in Europe. A Study of Eurasian Economic ThoughtArchived2020-08-03 at theWayback Machine,London School of Economics – March 2005 p. 3 "the diffusion ofwu-wei,co-evolved with the inner-Europeanlaissez-faireprinciple, the Libaniusian model. "p. 8" Thus,wu-weihas to be recognized as alaissez-faireinstrument of Chinese political economy "p. 10" Practisingwu-wei erzhi.Consequently, it is this variant of thelaissez-fairemaxim in which the basis of Physiocracy's 'moral philosophy' is to be located. Priddat's work made clear that thewu-weiof the completeéconomiehas to be considered central to Physiocracy; "p. 11" thatwu-weitranslates into French aslaissez-faire".
  32. ^Will & Ariel Durant,Rousseau and the Revolution,pp. 71–77, Simon and Schuster, 1967,ISBN0-671-63058-X.
  33. ^Will & Ariel Durant,Rousseau and the Revolution,p. 76, Simon and Schuster, 1967,ISBN0-671-63058-X.
  34. ^Scott Gordon (1955). "The London Economist and the High Tide of Laissez Faire".Journal of Political Economy.63(6): 461–488.doi:10.1086/257722.S2CID154921783.
  35. ^Cormac Ó Gráda(1995). "section:Ideology and reliefin Chpt. 2 ".The Great Irish Famine.Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-55787-0.
  36. ^George Miller.On Fairness and Efficiency.The Policy Press, 2000.ISBN978-1-86134-221-8p. 344
  37. ^Christine Kinealy.A Death-Dealing Famine:The Great Hunger in Ireland.Pluto Press, 1997.ISBN978-0-7453-1074-9.p. 59.
  38. ^Antonia Taddei (1999)."London Clubs in the Late Nineteenth Century"(PDF).Archived(PDF)from the original on 17 December 2008.Retrieved30 December2008.
  39. ^Jones, G. Gareth (1977). "The British Government and the Oil Companies 1912–1924: The Search for an Oil Policy".The Historical Journal.2(3): 647–672.doi:10.1017/s0018246x00011286.JSTOR2638433.S2CID161977401.
  40. ^(Croce-Einaudi, 1988, p. 139)
  41. ^Giovanni Sartori.The Theory of Democracy Revisited(1987).Chatham, New Jersey.Chatham House.ISBN0-934540-49-7.
  42. ^abPietro Moroni (25 April 2015)."Le due facce della medaglia neoliberale – Pandora Rivista".Pandora Rivista.Archivedfrom the original on 22 June 2018.Retrieved22 October2018.
  43. ^Croce ed Einaudi: un confronto su liberalismo e liberismoentry(in Italian)in theEnciclopedia Treccani
  44. ^Dario Antiseri.Liberalismo politico e liberalismo economico.Rubettino.
  45. ^F.Hayek (1997).Liberalismo.Ideazione. p. 62.Ciò comporta anche il rifiuto della distinzione tra liberalismo politico e liberalismo economico /elaborata in particolare da Croce come distinzione tra liberismo e liberalismo) Per la tradizione inglese, i due concetti sono inseparabili. Infatti, il principio fondamentale per cui l'intervento coercitivo dell'autorità statale deve limitarsi ad imporre il rispetto delle norme generali di mera condotta priva il governo del potere di dirigere e controllare le attività economiche degli individui.
  46. ^I sostenitori dell'esistenza di una dottrina liberista la attribuiscono adAdam Smithe al suo saggioLa Ricchezza delle Nazioni,laddove questi utilizzò il termine "liberal policy" un paio di volte per indicare il commercio privo di dazi. Smith non vedeva di buon occhio l'assenza di regolamentazione statale, infatti dichiarò: «Raramente la gente dello stesso mestiere si ritrova insieme, anche se per motivi di svago e di divertimento, senza che la conversazione risulti in una cospirazione contro i profani o in un qualche espediente per far alzare i prezzi».
  47. ^La lingua francese parla dilibéralisme politiqueelibéralisme économique(quest'ultimo chiamato anchelaissez-faire,lett.lasciate fare), lo spagnolo diliberalismo socialeliberalismo económico.La lingua inglese parla difree trade(libero commercio) ma usa il termineliberalismanche per riferirsi al liberismo economico.
  48. ^Carlo, Scogniamiglio Pasini."Liberismo e liberalismo nella polemica fra Croce ed Einaudi"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 28 December 2016.Retrieved22 October2018.
  49. ^Boehm-Bawerk (1999).Potere o legge economica?.Rubbettino. p. 67.
  50. ^Bourgin, Frank (1989).The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic.New York: George Braziller Inc.ISBN978-0-06-097296-7.[page needed]
  51. ^Bourgin, Frank (1 June 1989)."The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-faire in the Early Republic".Kirkusreviews.Archivedfrom the original on 21 September 2013.Retrieved30 July2013.
  52. ^Prince, Carl E.; Taylor, Seth (1982). "Daniel Webster, the Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's Role in the Industrializing Process, 1815–1830".Journal of the Early Republic.2(3): 283–299.doi:10.2307/3122975.JSTOR3122975.
  53. ^abGuelzo, Allen C. (1999).Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President.Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.ISBN978-0-8028-3872-8.[page needed]
  54. ^"From Sea to Shining Sea: The Heroes and Villains of the First Transcontinental Railroad".The Objective Standard.2019-05-10.Archivedfrom the original on 2021-04-29.Retrieved2021-04-29.
  55. ^Robert W. Crandall (1987)."The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection for Autos and Steel"(PDF).Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.1987(1): 271–288.doi:10.2307/2534518.JSTOR2534518.Archived(PDF)from the original on 2019-10-01.Retrieved2019-09-24.
  56. ^Pietro S. Nivola (1986). "The New Protectionism: U.S. Trade Policy in Historical Perspective".Political Science Quarterly.101(4): 577–600.doi:10.2307/2150795.JSTOR2150795.
  57. ^Rand, AynCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal,Ch. 7, New American Library, Signet, 1967.
  58. ^Armstrong, J. Scott; Green, Kesten C. (2013-10-01). "Effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility policies".Journal of Business Research.Strategic Thinking in Marketing.66(10): 1922–1927.CiteSeerX10.1.1.663.508.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.014.S2CID145059055.
  59. ^Peikoff 1991,pp. 350–352.
  60. ^Gotthelf 2000,pp. 91–92;Peikoff 1991,pp. 379–380.
  61. ^Peikoff 1991,pp. 369.
  62. ^Peikoff 1991,p. 367.
  63. ^Burns 2009,pp. 174–177, 209, 230–231;Den Uyl & Rasmussen 1986,pp. 225–226;Doherty 2007,pp. 189–190;Branden 1986,p. 252.
  64. ^Sciabarra 1995,pp. 266–267;Burns 2009,pp. 268–269.
  65. ^Sciabarra 1995,pp. 280–281;Peikoff 1991,pp. 371–372;Merrill 1991,p. 139.
  66. ^Nolan, Peter (2008).Capitalism and Freedom: The Contradictory Character of Globalisation.Anthem Press.ISBN978-1-84331-282-6.Retrieved9 February2017.
  67. ^Orchard, Lionel; Stretton, Hugh (2016).Public Goods, Public Enterprise, Public Choice: Theoretical Foundations of the Contemporary Attack on Government.Springer.ISBN978-1-349-23505-6.Retrieved9 February2017.
  68. ^Milton Friedman on Labor Unions – Free To Choose,22 February 2011,archivedfrom the original on 2021-12-11,retrieved2021-04-29
  69. ^"Economics vs. 'Need', by Dr. Thomas Sowell".creators.2013-06-11.Archivedfrom the original on 2021-04-29.Retrieved2021-04-29.
  70. ^Paris, Jeffrey (1 July 2005). "Rethinking the End of Modernity".Social Philosophy Today.21:173–189.doi:10.5840/socphiltoday20052120.
  71. ^Kilgore, Christopher D. (2017). "Bad Networks: From Virus to Cancer in Post-Cyberpunk Narrative".Journal of Modern Literature.40(2): 165–183.doi:10.2979/jmodelite.40.2.10.JSTOR10.2979/jmodelite.40.2.10.S2CID157670471.
  72. ^Nick Manley."Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part One"Archived2021-08-18 at theWayback Machine.
  73. ^Nick Maley."Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part Two".Archived2021-05-16 at theWayback Machine
  74. ^Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011).Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty.Brooklyn, NY:Minor Compositions/Autonomedia
  75. ^"It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism." Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011).Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty.Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. p. back cover.
  76. ^"But there has always been a market-oriented strand of libertarian socialism that emphasizes voluntary cooperation between producers. And markets, properly understood, have always been about cooperation. As a commenter at Reason magazine's Hit&Run blog, remarking onJesse Walker's link to the Kelly article, put it: "every trade is a cooperative act." In fact, it's a fairly common observation among market anarchists that genuinely free markets have the most legitimate claim to the label "socialism." ""Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated"Archived2016-03-10 at theWayback MachinebyKevin Carsonat website of Center for a Stateless Society.
  77. ^Tucker, Benjamin."State Socialism and Anarchism"Archived2019-03-11 at theWayback Machine.
  78. ^Brown, Susan Love. 1997. "The Free Market as Salvation from Government". InMeanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture.Berg Publishers. p. 107.
  79. ^Carson, Kevin A. (2008).Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective.Charleston, SC:BookSurge.
  80. ^Carson, Kevin A. (2010).The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto.Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
  81. ^Long, Roderick T. (2000).Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand.Washington, DC:Objectivist Center
  82. ^Long, Roderick T. (2008). "An Interview With Roderick LongArchived2020-03-27 at theWayback Machine"
  83. ^Johnson, Charles W. (2008). "Liberty, Equality, Solidarity: Toward a Dialectical AnarchismArchived2022-06-26 at theWayback Machine."Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?In Long, Roderick T. and Machan, Tibor Aldershot: Ashgate pp. 155–188.
  84. ^Spangler, Brad (15 September 2006). "Market Anarchism as Stigmergic SocialismArchived10 May 2011 atarchive.today.
  85. ^Richman, Sheldon (23 June 2010). "Why Left-Libertarian?Archived2020-01-03 at theWayback Machine"The Freeman.Foundation for Economic Education.
  86. ^Richman, Sheldon (18 December 2009). "Workers of the World Unite for a Free Market ".Archived22 July 2014 at theWayback Machine."Foundation for Economic Education.
  87. ^abSheldon Richman (3 February 2011). "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown idealArchived9 May 2012 at theWayback Machine."The American Conservative.Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  88. ^Sciabarra, Chris Matthew (2000).Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism.University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State University Press.
  89. ^Chartier, Gary (2009).Economic Justice and Natural Law.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  90. ^Gillis, William (2011). "The Freed Market." In Chartier, Gary and Johnson, Charles.Markets Not Capitalism.Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 19–20.
  91. ^Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011).Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty.Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 1–16.
  92. ^Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson (eds).Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty.Minor Compositions; 1st edition (November 5, 2011
  93. ^Gary Chartier has joined Kevin Carson, Charles W. Johnson and others (echoing the language ofBenjamin Tucker,Lysander SpoonerandThomas Hodgskin) in maintaining that—because of its heritage, emancipatory goals and potential—radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists can and should call themselves socialists. See Gary Chartier, "Advocates of Freed Markets Should Oppose Capitalism," "Free-Market Anti-Capitalism?" session, annual conference,Association of Private Enterprise Education(Cæsar's Palace, Las Vegas, NV, April 13, 2010); Gary Chartier,"Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace 'Anti-Capitalism'"Archived2019-09-29 at theWayback Machine;Gary Chartier,Socialist Ends, Market Means: Five EssaysArchived2019-03-28 at theWayback Machine.Cp. Tucker, "Socialism."
  94. ^Nick Manley,"Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part One"Archived2021-08-18 at theWayback Machine.
  95. ^Nick Manley,"Brief Introduction To Left-Wing Laissez Faire Economic Theory: Part Two"Archived2021-05-16 at theWayback Machine.
  96. ^"Introductions – Kevin Carson"Archived2019-03-29 at theWayback Machine.
  97. ^Carson, Kevin."Intellectual Property – A Libertarian Critique".c4ss.org.Archivedfrom the original on September 11, 2012.RetrievedMay 23,2009.
  98. ^Kevin A. Carson,IntroductionArchived2012-10-16 at theWayback Machine,The Art of the Possible.
  99. ^Carson, Kevin."Industrial Policy: New Wine in Old Bottles".c4ss.org.Archivedfrom the original on September 11, 2012.RetrievedMay 26,2009.
  100. ^Kevin Carson,"Studies in Mutualist Political Economy",Archived15 April 2011 at theWayback Machinechs. 1–3.
  101. ^Carson, Kevin A.Carson's RejoindersArchived2014-08-17 at theWayback Machine.Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 20, No. 1 (Winter 2006): 97–136 [116–117].
  102. ^abRichman, Sheldon,Libertarian LeftArchived14 August 2011 at theWayback Machine,The American Conservative(March 2011).
  103. ^Dean, Brian (Winter 2002)."Bluffer's Guide to Revolutionary Economics".The Idler.Archivedfrom the original on 27 April 2009.Retrieved24 May2009.
  104. ^Marx,Theories of Surplus Value, III,p. 501.
  105. ^See Gary Chartier,Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society(New York: Cambridge UP 2013) 44–156.
  106. ^See Gary Chartier, "Natural Law and Non-Aggression,"Acta Juridica Hungarica51.2 (June 2010): 79–96 and, for an earlier version,Justice32–46.
  107. ^SeeJustice47–68.
  108. ^Justice89–120.
  109. ^See Gary Chartier, "Pirate Constitutions and Workplace Democracy,"Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik18 (2010): 449–467.
  110. ^Justice123–154.
  111. ^See Gary Chartier,' "Intellectual Property and Natural Law,"Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy36 (2011): 58–88.
  112. ^SeeJustice176–182.
  113. ^"Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace" Anti-Capitalism "Archived2021-10-23 at theWayback Machine.
  114. ^abcdSpencer J. Pack. Capitalism as a Moral System: Adam Smith's Critique of the Free Market Economy. Great Britain: Edward Elgar, 2010. Print
  115. ^Macfie, A.L. (1959). "Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments as Foundation for His Wealth of Nations".Oxford Economic Papers.11(3): 209–228.doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a040824.
  116. ^Hobbes, Thomas (1909–14).Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan.Collier & Son.
  117. ^"Enlightenment".History.2009.Archivedfrom the original on 2021-02-07.Retrieved2021-04-29.
  118. ^McNally, David (1993).Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and the Marxist Critique.Verso.ISBN978-0-86091-606-2.
  119. ^Dostaler, Gilles,Keynes and His Battles(Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007), p. 91.
  120. ^Dostaler 2007, p. 91; Barnett, Vincent,John Maynard Keynes(Routledge, 2013), p. 143.
  121. ^White, Lawrence H. (1999)."Why Didn't Hayek Favor Laissez Faire in Banking?"(PDF).History of Political Economy.31(4): 753–769.doi:10.1215/00182702-31-4-753.Archived(PDF)from the original on 1 April 2013.Retrieved11 April2013.
  122. ^Polanyi, Karl (1944).The Great Transformation.Farrar & Rinehart.
  123. ^McCloskey, Deirdre (1997)."Polanyi Was Right, and Wrong"(PDF).Eastern Economic Journal.Archived(PDF)from the original on 2021-08-07.Retrieved2021-07-26.
  124. ^Kuttner, Robert (19 December 2001)."Globalization and Its Critics".The American Prospect.Archivedfrom the original on 13 September 2018.Retrieved17 March2019.
  125. ^Kerckhove, Gilbert Van (2012).Toxic Capitalism: The Orgy of Consumerism and Waste: Are We the Last Generation on Earth?.AuthorHouse.ISBN978-1-4772-1906-5.Retrieved9 February2017.
  126. ^"Müntefering's criticism of raw capitalism strikes a chord".Financial Times.Archivedfrom the original on 2022-12-10.Retrieved9 February2017.[permanent dead link]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Look uplaissez-fairein Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has quotations related toLaissez-faire.
Listen to this article(1minute)
Spoken Wikipedia icon
This audio filewas created from a revision of this article dated 27 June 2008(2008-06-27),and does not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help·More spoken articles)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laissez-faire&oldid=1241828218"