Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
::: opens mouth to respond... closes it again once the realization that there is nobody there who is capable of understanding the response. :::Laissez Faire has never in history produced the claims its supporters tout.
The sooner the idea is dead the sooner we can move forward into reality
Nevermind.
I'm guessing that such person could not explain the term or the economic concept in her own words. Most people who would make such a statement don't have a clue what the concept is. They know that some conservatives believe in it and therefore it is automatically a stupid, evil thing.
The sad part is I don't agree with true Laissez Faire capitalism because I studied history and saw what happened from 1875 to about 1915. It was not pretty. On the other hand, what we have now with hyper (unenforced except politically convenient) regulation.
We need broad, strictly enforced and harshly penalized regulations in the areas of Anti-Fraud, Pro Competition, Consumer Protection, Labor Protection, Anti Corruption and Racketeering sections of the code. When you get busted for them, you need to really get hurt.
On the other hand, taxation, environmental, zoning and business regulation need to be loosened considerably. Not only that, but a reversion to a more traditional English Tort system to go after the litigious society we have created that lives on 'sue for fun and profit'. Little things like "loser pays" and "direct harm" need to be applied. No more tobacco industry lawsuit style litigation.
But other than this stance, I am for a return to a much more hands off policy by the US government and business as long as the corruption is kept in abeyance and competition is not stifled.
sses Faire::: opens mouth to respond... closes it again once the realization that there is nobody there who is capable of understanding the response. :::
Nevermind.
I'm guessing that such person could not explain the term or the economic concept in her own words. Most people who would make such a statement don't have a clue what the concept is. They know that some conservatives believe in it and therefore it is automatically a stupid, evil thing.
I'm clueless...can you explain how you would like it to work?
Total Laisses Faire? No Government control or regulation? Less government control?
Who's Lacey Faire?
She was asking for it. wearing all those clothes and you know... breathing.Who's Lacey Faire?
The fairy godmother of the U.S. economy who was brutally ass-raped by the Democrats over the last 50 years or so.
I agree with you both, save for the call for lessoning environmental regulations. What regulations, exactly o you think we should get rid of? The Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? The Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative? The Safe Drinking Water Act?
What pisses me off the most is the reactionary fear mongering from the environazis constantly tightening the restrictions to make sure they have a job. The Clean Air and Clean Water act as they originally came in turned out to be decent things. But their growth and tightening of restrictions and expansion of power are the problem. Their expansions for political purposes through the lie of global warming is just reprehensibility. End the scope creep, and leave it back where it was 40 years ago and force a cost benefit analysis to any changes enacted since then, dropping those without a proven record of good value for the improvement.I agree with you both [Fits and Fox], save for the call for lessoning environmental regulations. What regulations, exactly o you think we should get rid of? The Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? The Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative? The Safe Drinking Water Act?
I agree with you both, save for the call for lessoning environmental regulations. What regulations, exactly o you think we should get rid of? The Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? The Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative? The Safe Drinking Water Act?
All those 'acts' are to impose consequences for violating the rights of others. You violate my rights if you contaminate air, water, soil etc. that I must of necessity share with you. Such regulations are necessary in order for the government to fulfill its Constitutional duty to secure and protect our unalienable rights.
But as the essay demonstrated,
otherwise all the combined talent, intelligence, and knowledge of Congress is incapable of knowing all the components that go into the stocking of a single super market or most of the products stocked. Congress/government has no business trying to micromanage such things
and should maintain a strict hands off policy and allow the market to work unfettered and laizzez-faire.
What pisses me off the most is the reactionary fear mongering from the environazis constantly tightening the restrictions to make sure they have a job.I agree with you both [Fits and Fox], save for the call for lessoning environmental regulations. What regulations, exactly o you think we should get rid of? The Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? The Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative? The Safe Drinking Water Act?
The Clean Air and Clean Water act as they originally came in turned out to be decent things. But their growth and tightening of restrictions and expansion of power are the problem.
End the scope creep, and leave it back where it was 40 years ago
and force a cost benefit analysis to any changes enacted since then, dropping those without a proven record of good value for the improvement.
Who's Lacey Faire?
The fairy godmother of the U.S. economy who was brutally ass-raped by the Democrats over the last 50 years or so.
I agree with you both, save for the call for lessoning environmental regulations. What regulations, exactly o you think we should get rid of? The Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? The Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative? The Safe Drinking Water Act?
All those 'acts' are to impose consequences for violating the rights of others. You violate my rights if you contaminate air, water, soil etc. that I must of necessity share with you. Such regulations are necessary in order for the government to fulfill its Constitutional duty to secure and protect our unalienable rights.
Agreed.
You refer to this post?
otherwise all the combined talent, intelligence, and knowledge of Congress is incapable of knowing all the components that go into the stocking of a single super market or most of the products stocked. Congress/government has no business trying to micromanage such things
Agreed. Now do you have any evidence that Congress has attempted such a thing?
and should maintain a strict hands off policy and allow the market to work unfettered and laizzez-faire.
You confuse Laizzez-faire with the market itself. True LF means market anarchy, with no government regulation or oversight. True LF was a total failure. Some regulation, such as environmental and product safety regulations, workplace safety regulations, and mandated transparency were found to be necessary. Additionally, ant-trust and anti-monopoly laws and actions were needed to save the free market from the end result of its strict application.
The sad part is I don't agree with true Laissez Faire capitalism because I studied history and saw what happened from 1875 to about 1915. It was not pretty. On the other hand, what we have now with hyper (unenforced except politically convenient) regulation.
We need broad, strictly enforced and harshly penalized regulations in the areas of Anti-Fraud, Pro Competition, Consumer Protection, Labor Protection, Anti Corruption and Racketeering sections of the code. When you get busted for them, you need to really get hurt.
On the other hand, taxation, environmental, zoning and business regulation need to be loosened considerably. Not only that, but a reversion to a more traditional English Tort system to go after the litigious society we have created that lives on 'sue for fun and profit'. Little things like "loser pays" and "direct harm" need to be applied. No more tobacco industry lawsuit style litigation.
But other than this stance, I am for a return to a much more hands off policy by the US government and business as long as the corruption is kept in abeyance and competition is not stifled.
The function of government should be to secure our rights which would include enforcement of fair trade, anti-trust, and other laws, rules, regs that prevent one class of people doing business from running over another class of people doing business with impunity. Otherwise government should keep hands off and allow the free market to work as much as possible.
Yes, if a shortage of some commodity is putting U.S. business at a distinct disadvantage, there is room for government to subsidize or otherwise promote increase supply of that commodity. This should be in the interest of the general welfare, however, rather than favoring one enterprise over another.
In other words, government should mostly be in the business of ensuring that everybody has a chance to compete fairly, openly, and honestly without illegal interference, and should otherwise stay out of it.
No. I said said limited, well defined and severely enforced. All environmental regs must be means tested and have thorough cost/benefit analysis.The sad part is I don't agree with true Laissez Faire capitalism because I studied history and saw what happened from 1875 to about 1915. It was not pretty. On the other hand, what we have now with hyper (unenforced except politically convenient) regulation.
We need broad, strictly enforced and harshly penalized regulations in the areas of Anti-Fraud, Pro Competition, Consumer Protection, Labor Protection, Anti Corruption and Racketeering sections of the code. When you get busted for them, you need to really get hurt.
On the other hand, taxation, environmental, zoning and business regulation need to be loosened considerably. Not only that, but a reversion to a more traditional English Tort system to go after the litigious society we have created that lives on 'sue for fun and profit'. Little things like "loser pays" and "direct harm" need to be applied. No more tobacco industry lawsuit style litigation.
But other than this stance, I am for a return to a much more hands off policy by the US government and business as long as the corruption is kept in abeyance and competition is not stifled.
The function of government should be to secure our rights which would include enforcement of fair trade, anti-trust, and other laws, rules, regs that prevent one class of people doing business from running over another class of people doing business with impunity. Otherwise government should keep hands off and allow the free market to work as much as possible.
Yes, if a shortage of some commodity is putting U.S. business at a distinct disadvantage, there is room for government to subsidize or otherwise promote increase supply of that commodity. This should be in the interest of the general welfare, however, rather than favoring one enterprise over another.
In other words, government should mostly be in the business of ensuring that everybody has a chance to compete fairly, openly, and honestly without illegal interference, and should otherwise stay out of it.
Fair enough...but you don't sound very laissez faire
No environmental protection?
No zoning? Build any piece of crap you want wherever you want
They do it all the time with various excise taxes, subsidies for products when there is no shortage, tariffs, or favors given to various industries. Lately they are starting to meddle in fat content, sugar content, salt content etc. of foods and looking for ways to 'punish' any products Congress thinks people should not be using, etc. They also do it by funneling the people's money to favored groups/industries/projects and in numerous other ways.
Laizzez-faire is not synonymous with market anarchy.
It is understanding that the process is mostly invisible everywhere but in one's own part of it, and appreciating that it works despite lack of intentional ethics, nobility, charity, or any other edifying concept. Trying to force any form of preconceived sense of 'ethics' into that invisible process will invariably result in unintended bad consequences despite the fact that many of those involved voluntarily employ their own personal sense of ethics.
They do it all the time with various excise taxes, subsidies for products when there is no shortage, tariffs, or favors given to various industries. Lately they are starting to meddle in fat content, sugar content, salt content etc. of foods and looking for ways to 'punish' any products Congress thinks people should not be using, etc. They also do it by funneling the people's money to favored groups/industries/projects and in numerous other ways.
You spoke of them running the store and micromanaging its order, etc. You spoke of government-run enterprises in place of private enterprises- you spoke of a nationalized economy like the Cuban barbershops that were addressed here at USMB a short time ago. Demonstrate that such is the case or admit that your analogy is horrible flawed.
Now, on to the specific complaints you've made. I agree on the note regarding subsidies and have stated in the past that I disagree on principle with 'morality taxes' or other taxes, tariffs, or other fees or fines against specific products. Taxation should be applied universally to all applicable goods and services at the same rate, imo.
I agree that there is a critical difference between mandatory transparency and consumer information (such as requiring the 'nutritional information' box on foodstuffs) and attempting to use taxes and other federal powers to punish people for choosing to use products that are bad for them ('candy taxes', 'soda taxes' and mandating the maximum calories in food products). The information should be readily available and people should be allowed to decide for themselves- they should know, however, that related illness {a smoker's lung cancer, a fa man's diabetes, etc) will not be covered by any public health options or public clinics unless they pay for it themselves or their private insurance covers it.
Laizzez-faire is not synonymous with market anarchy.
The term is predominately used by those who favour market anarchy and the 'invisible hand' over necessary regulation.
It is understanding that the process is mostly invisible everywhere but in one's own part of it, and appreciating that it works despite lack of intentional ethics, nobility, charity, or any other edifying concept. Trying to force any form of preconceived sense of 'ethics' into that invisible process will invariably result in unintended bad consequences despite the fact that many of those involved voluntarily employ their own personal sense of ethics.
Injecting ethics in the matter was necessary. Indeed, when you say that regulation should prevent dumping and pollution, including your justification based on their infringement of others' rights, you are injecting ethics into the matter based on your own morality. The collective morality and the collective suffering caused by past abuses led to the injection of ethics into the market in to form of needed regulation. There is always a potential for abuse, and there has indeed been abuse, but the call for L-F and the 'invisible hand' [which are but euphemisms for market anarchy and the exploitation by those who can by those unable to protect themselves] is not the solution. The solution is reform that improves upon necessary regulation while ridding the system of abuse and unjust, unnecessary, and counterproductive laws, regulation, and practices.
It is possible that I could have said some of that when addressing a different context though I think you are erroneously attributing at least some remarks of others to me. But unless you can show where I said any of that within this context, I am not obligated to admit anything.
That falls within promoting the general welfare.
Ethics is not the responsibility of government other than for government to enforce ethical standards for its own behavior
. Securing the rights of the people is the responsibility of government
Ethics is not the responsibility of government other than for government to enforce ethical standards for its own behavior
