Jump to content

Talk:Laissez-faire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Laissez-faire vs. laisser faire

Hi,

In this article, there is a particular distinction made between laissez-faire and laisser faire. I've searched the web and can't find confirmation of this, and I'd like to know if it's a commonly accepted difference. Sources would be especially welcome.

Phil C.

"Laissez-faire" translates into English as "[you] let it be" (imperative) while "laisser faire" translates as "to let it be" (infinitive) --76.2.44.243 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"More Accurately"?

a French phrase meaning idiomatically "leave to do, leave to pass" or more accurately "let things alone, let them pass".

Isn't that less accurately as it is not a direct French translation?

Hah, nevermind, I re-read it and now it makes sense. Ignore this --Kevin McManus 21:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Laisser faire" is sometimes used by collectivists to cast doubt on the basic premise of laissez-faire, namely that "all men are created equal, endowed by certain unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The reason is that "laisser faire" implies the existence of "quelqu'un qui laisse faire".. someone (i.e., the state or "society") that permits people to do what they want to do. The origin of the term is from the opposite, Jeffersonian tradition, and was in fact a rallying cry... "Laissez-nous faire, laissez-nous passer"---let us do, let us pass! ("Leave us the hell alone", we might say today.) --Mika Nystrom

Relevance of the success of SU?

The sentence "Note that the government of the Soviet Union never achieved "communism" as it saw it, that is, the perfect socialist state." is a non-sequitur. The historical success of the Soviet Union in achieving communism is entirely irrelevant to the claim by some critics that capitalism is unachievable. It is possible to mention a criticism of capitalism without bringing up a similar criticism of communism ;) Slinky Puppet 11:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

There are far too many unsourced claims being made. For example:

  • Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use the laissez-faire philosophy, as it can easily be interpreted through his inaugural speech. The fact that he made comments in his inaugural speech [needs link] does not support that he was the first to adopt the philosophy. Who has made this claim.
  • The government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom believed that lessening the power of the state in the economy would improve things. After a period of intense pain to many, this was found to be the case. Was it specifically the promotion of [i]Laissez-faire[/i] that helped or did other factors also contribute? I'm not an economist so I don't know but there needs to be a link to an expert that makes this specific claim and provides evidence.
  • However, much less intervention occurs than did before Thatcher and Reagan's changes were made. Everywhere? This needs a source

Slinky Puppet 11:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"The government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom believed that lessening the power of the state in the economy would improve things. After a period of intense pain to many, this was found to be the case."

What’s the evidence for this claim? Because right now it seems as if some one has made a value judgment which is not a NPOV.

Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)

The Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) stands out as the classic example of lasseiz-faire's failures —the failures of the English government to act on behalf of its Irish subjects (excluding deliberate malfeasance, and other finger-pointing) is directly tied to the lasseiz-faire economic policies of the English government, wherin a climate of malfeasance and injustice could dominate. After the horrors of the famine became widely known, English economic policy, as well as the political balance in Parliament shifted from Conservative to Liberal, and did not much change until the World War II period. Because the Great Famine can (ironically) also be traced to protectionist policy (in the Corn Laws) critics point to this type of schism in the real world (between idealised freedom and protectionism) as typical of lasseiz-faire. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I vote for deletion!! Intangible 08:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! This is self-contradictory nonsense. Lassez-faire is blamed for the Irish Famine (with no concrete evidence) AND protectionism is blamed. I guess using the word "ironically" in parentheses is supposed to make up for it. NONSENSE. DELETE.Joey1898 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But it was responsible: Private sectors had no interest in providing for Irish: a failing country that could no longer produce anything of worth, and the government at the time, enacting lasseiz-faire had no responsibility to help. To deny the connection is just blatantly ignorant. However, I imagine this comment will go ignored in favour of the ideological charge that ionises this article. you cannot blame the free market for a problem in a country that was not operating under a free market

American System

Can anyone provide a source for the American System being a contrast to Laissez-faire? Thanks, -Will Beback 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Great Depression

Milton Friedman actually considers regulation, specificly the Federal Reserve, for turning what would have been a minor recession into the great depression, and his argument is very convincing (to me, at least).

Friedman's opinion, however correct or inaccurate, is a minority point of view, and should be presented as such -Archimedean 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article. The "American System" was not the product of Henry Clay. Rather for those American's who bother to look at their money, Alexander Hamilton , whose face is on the $10 bill, was the creator of the protectionist "American System". It is clear that the author of this article does not know what he/she is talking about.

The Great Depression was not brought about by free market economics, at least not in such large of scale. Depressions are natural tendencies of Free Market economics but they are often short lived and not very widespread. As the original poster mentioned the Federal Reserve Act is largely to blame. Congress gave a private organization the right to run the dollar, and the depression was not brought about due to lack of dollars but lack of value of those dollars. The Federal Reserve Act is also by the way illegal since the Constitution clearly designates the rights assumed by the Federal Reserve Bank to congress. Now congress does have to power to change that but not without a constitutional amendment
Clearly this section was written by a socialist, and seeing the huge population of them on wikipedia I am not surprised. For all you socialist out there... please stop trying to rig history in order to convince people you are right. I fail to see how somebody can believe the elimination of competition will increase profits and wealth of the nation. Liberals in general need to learn that life sometimes sucks, sh*t happens... if these people believe so much in survival of the fittest why can't they put it back into the original context, .

~~TheHoustonKid, (L-TX)~~

No depression was caused by a huge retraction of money from the market which made currency such a scarse resource it was very very very hard to get a hold of. Federal Reserve is what makes this possible but the ones to blame is the bureaucrats/politician who decided to do so either by a stupid mistake of a decision or knowingly done to further his own personal agenda. Lord Metroid 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

add an english phonetic pronunciation

i would like to use this phrase, but im not sure on the exact pronunciation. add a phenetic pronunciation please

The article already has e phonetic pronuciation - "(lɛze fɛr)". For those who find that mysterious, a rough version would be "lay-zay fair". -Will Beback 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to intervene and point out that the correct French pronounciation is closer to "leh-SSEH fair." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.74.187.250 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Criticism of Criticism

Markets without oversight tend toward collusion as in Archer Daniels Midland

This comment is internally incorrect as well as not relevant to an article on Laissez-faire.

  • ADM had oversight and because of this oversight it received both civil and criminal penalties for violations of law.
  • The agricultural products market in the United States is both highly regulated and highly subsidized — with ADM through its lobbying connections influencing both regulation and its flow of price subsidies.
  • In the context presented in the article collusion is undefined. Collusion might be legal, voluntary agreements among producers, or among consumers, or between producers and consumers; or it might be fraud or anti-trust violations. In context, tend is too vague to give the sentence a plain meaning.

Markets without oversight tend toward fraud as in Enron

This comment is unsupported

  • The connection of fraud to Enron is well-established. The connection of laissez-faire to Enron is not. Rather than not being regulated, Enron was regulated and exploiting weaknesses in the complex system of auditing rules, tax laws, confidentiality laws, etc. but only for a while.

There are far better criticisms of laissez-faire than the two cited above, but first, let's clean up these two. patsw 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

What are our sources for this article? Where does this come from?

  • President Reagan called his plan the "New Federalism" calling for a reduction in welfare programs across the board. Despite rhetoric, President Reagan did not follow strict 'Laissez-faire' especially towards trade. Several times during his eight year administration quotas were placed on the importaiton of Japanese cars helping American automobile manufacturers and their workers while tariffs were enacted to protect certain industries such as tool-making (Craftsman tools) or motorcycles (Harley-Davidson).

Are we conflating tariff policy with Laissez-faire economics? I would have thought that Reagan's most notable laissez-faire policies were internal, such as deregulation, corporate and income tax reform, and anti-unionism. We should mention those before mentioning minor tariff issues. -Will Beback 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We should mention all of it. Go ahead and add your information as it is accurate as well. --Northmeister 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also restored deleted material on the United States in the Cold War, links within the sentences provide ample sources therein. Germany, Japan, France, and the United States all followed their unique interventionist paths after WWII until around early 1970's for USA, late 1970's for France, 1960's (limited) for Japan with some economic liberalization. All of it fits for the contrasts in the Cold War and the subsequent slow embrace of laissez-faire by all except Japan and Germany (and some degree France). --Northmeister 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Twice the United States information was removed. Why are you removing it? What do you dispute in the information? --Northmeister 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked you what your sources are but you haven't responded. The U.S. space program has nothing to do with this subject. You are making assertions without sources or attributions. -Will Beback 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you would discuss with me here in talk before outright deletions that would be fine, we could work together and come to agreement. I can see your point on the Space Program but maintain mine. I would have agreed with you about a source needed about that; but instead you delete my material and add comments in the edit summary such as 'American System cruft' which is not assuming good faith and a round about personal attack on my credibility. Why? AGF with other editors. I have reported your violation of 3RR. In the future please be more civil and work with me in good faith. --Northmeister 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I started this thread to work with you and other editors. Please don't add unsourced and unerifiable material. -Will Beback 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You added after the statements made in edit summary and after deleting my material. You know full well I am willing to provide sources for what I add. You deleted in-spite of this. Deleting other editors work over and over again is violation of 3RR. As I said above I am more than willing to discuss and work edits out; you did not have this in mind and did not assume good faith with my edits. --Northmeister 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't know that you will provide sources. You've never filled my requests for sources at American System (economics), and it appears that you are now using the original research in that article as a basis for adding material in other articles. -Will Beback 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That is bull and you know it. Anyone will by reading the discussion there actually. --Northmeister 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
How about sources for this article? What sources did you use for your re-write? -Will Beback 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you challenge specifically? Plus, restore my edits and we will work on them one by one. If I cannot back them up or if after your argument, I agree with you that it is not relevant after reconsideration; then it can be taken out. Work with me not against me, which more often seems to be your crusade in stalking me. --Northmeister 19:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you again, what sources did you use to write this? -Will Beback 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Again which edit that I made? And again work with not against other editors and assume good faith by restoring your deletions. By what source have you deleted any of the material you question without placing {fact} first and giving me time to respond or discussing it here with me on the individual edit I made? RJIII may weigh in or any that I have asked to weigh in and if I am wrong for inclusion of material then so be it. But, you simply delete all my edits, question them over and over again...so you must have some relative source that refutes what I add....Well what source refutes my material that you so strongly object too? And what edit are you talking about, since you deleted pretty much everything I included four times, which is a violation of 3RR? --Northmeister 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not deleted anything from this article that is sourced. Since you refuse to provide any sources that you used to write this material I am forced to believe that there were no sources, that you wrote it off the top of your head. If you cannot provide the sources you used to write this then we should go back to the prior version. -Will Beback 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Again provide a list of questions you have about my edits or those edits and I will respond with citations. By the criteria you use, then it seems to me that every statement is not sourced in this article and should contain a citation after it. Provide which edits of mine you contest and why? --Northmeister 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I am asking what sources you used to write this. Stop playing games and show us the sources you used. If you have none then please say so. You either used them or you didn't. As for specifics, the material that I removed needs sources if you want to restore it. Citations are needed for any material marked with {fact} request. -Will Beback 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Then mark my edits you dispute with {fact} and give me a reasonable chance to respond to you - rather than deleting my edits outright. That is assuming good faith. I stated over and over again I rather work with editors than be in a form of argument with them over their bad faith and outright deletions. --Northmeister 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The first time I added the {fact} requests you simply deleted them.[1]. So, please, can we now have the sources? -Will Beback 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That is not entirely true. You deleted my material on the United States with the statement in edit summary "American System cruft" for starters and did not provide a {fact} request along with other deletions in that edit of yours. If you had started with these simple requests rather than deleting my material (I could see if you do not know of my edit history per other articles, but you know full well I provide sources for disputes when requested and that I do not add material to articles unless I feel it is relevant, which doesn't make it necessarily relevant, sometimes I make judgement mistakes...but I am human). Again, restoration of material, putting {fact} after that which you dispute, then engaging with me in talk here about the disputed facts (what do you dispute again since you deleted so much?) would help out here rather than simply disrupting this page to make some sort of 'cruft' point as you stated. --Northmeister 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Add your sources, please. -Will Beback 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on with this dispute, but I think it's a good idea to not delete the information outright (unless it's obviously bizarre statements), and ask for sources first. Then if Northmeister can't come up with sources in reasonable time, delete or modify it. And, so on. I know that Beback did put up some "citation requested tags" earlier. I don't know how much time he gave him though. RJII 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those wishing to add the material. I've been asking for sources since February (see above) and haven't received any from Northmeister. Rather than providing them he's now claiming I violated the 3RR when applying {fact} requests. Let's see what sources turn up, but it appears to me that the editor simply wrote the material off the top of his head. -Will Beback 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You didn't just provide (fact} requests, you deleted material outright without discussion or asking for a {fact} on it. So please be honest here. Second, in February you asked a general question, that other editors chose not to answer themselves because it was so out of sort to begin with. Again, restore, then provide {fact}, then work in good faith rather than violating 3RR over and over here to make a point. --Northmeister 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not restoring unsourced information. Find sources for it and restore it when you have. Please provide citations for the items marked {fact}. Also, please stop making false charge of 3RR violations. You apparently have not read our WP:3RR policy. -Will Beback 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, contrare! "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that. It may apply to as little as a few words or, in some cases, just one word that is continually added and deleted. Use common sense; don't edit war. - Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, please discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved. - This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring." -- And, all I wish is for you to provide what you contest so I may respond. Do so my restoring your deletions and adding {fact} or by providing the text below so I may know what you dispute. --Northmeister 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If I have violated the 3RR please find an admin to agree with you and block me for 24 hours. Otherwise please stop making the accusation. I have marked some material with the {fact} tag. Please provide citations for them. -Will Beback 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Will Beback to provide specific instances where he disputes my edits. He refused to do so, presumably because he does not have any case due to lack of knowledge of this subject area or reading on the subject as I have with my extensive library and studying presently and in the past to obtain my degrees on these subjects relating mostly to history and politics, both American and European (especially German and Russian). That said, I will provide the citations I refer to in the article as where my information came from. There are others of course, but these are the direct references and should be read by Will Beback to gain further knowledge of economic systems and history before outright deletion without discussion in the future. Here is the added references for anyones perusal:

  • Batra, Ravi The Myth of Free Trade : The Pooring of America Touchstone, 1996.
  • Buchanan, Patrick J. The Great Betrayal : How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed... Little, Brown, 1998.
  • Carre, Jean Jacques French Economic Growth (Studies of economic growth in industrialized countries) Stanford University Press, 1975.
  • Fingleton, Eamonn Unsustainable: How Economic Dogma is Destroying American Prosperity Nation Books, 2003.
  • Gardner, H. Stephen Comparative Economic Systems (The Dryden Press Series in Economics) Dryden Press, 1988.
  • Gill, William J. Trade Wars Against America Praeger Publishers, 1990.
  • Lawrence, James Rise and Fall of the British Empire Little Brown & Co , 1995.

--Northmeister 07:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Thanks for providing citations. This one in particular caught my eye:

  • In addition the United States guided by the changes made during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" continued with massive investments by government in highway building under President Eisenhower and the successful Moon landing and space program of NASA started by President John F. Kennedy during the 1950's and 1960's that coupled with military spending maintained through government intervention and expenditure the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929. (Gardner)

The cited book does not include either NASA or the American System in its index. Exactly what does the author say about laissez-faire economics in American in the 1950s and '60s? -Will Beback 07:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Just a note. It's good to ask for direct quotes, just in case someone is misinterpreting something from a source. RJII 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Collins book for further information involving NASA and JFK, and read the pages I provided on Gardner for general overview of American economic policy at the time. Further follow the outside link on NASA's impact on USA. --Northmeister 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Which one says that that "the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929."? Which one says that JFK started NASA in the 1950s? -Will Beback 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are reading the sentence wrong. Nobody says JFK started NASA at all, it was started in Eisenhower's administration in the 1950's when he was building the highways which precedes the statement on JFK in the sentence.--Northmeister 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please give the quote that links NASA to laissez faire economics? And also the one that about the middle class growing under the American System, and the one that says the U.S. followed that system from 1861 to 1929. . Thanks, -Will Beback 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That is not the purpose of the paragraph. Read the what comes before that sentence about Japan, Germany, and France. It tells what was going on during the cold war that lead up to the Laissez-Faire of Thatcher and Reagan. --Northmeister 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's omit the non-Laissez faire parts. What about the other question - regarding the U.S. middle class - maybe we'd better omit that too, if it is not about the topic of the article. -Will Beback 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is about the topic, indicating what happened in the world prior to the rise of Thatcher, Reagan etc. who advocated Laissez Faire. Do you have soemthing to improve this article? Or are you nit-picking here after once again following me to an edit? I am all for improvement and collaboration, but you don't contribute and when sources are provided you nit-pick. Check them and tell me what is wrong, I did my part and am obligated no further. Further I deleted the {fact} by accident. That was not written by me, so whomever wrote that section needs to come up with a source, I think it was RJIII. --Northmeister 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't me. RJII 02:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a source for " that coupled with military spending maintained through government intervention and expenditure the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929." What is the direct quote that we're summarizing with that line? Who says that the American System built up the middle from 1861 to 1929? -Will Beback 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions part deux

First, are you denying that the American System existed, once again? You seem to be bringing an argument from one article to another. We went over this on the American System page with ample citation to indicate what the American System was and how long it lasted, with the only dispute the years 1913 or 1929 being the change..more so 1929 with the Depression and oncoming of the New Deal which repudiated the protective tariff system with reciprocity trade deals and internal subsidy. Second, if the before said system, which again we have also discussed previously as being called the 'protective system' and 'national system' did not build the American Middle Class then what are you asserting did? The very fact you are challenging this must indicate you disagree with the facts. If this is so, then why do you disagree? Are you arguing America did not practice "protective tariffs, internal improvement building, national banking (productive investments/sound currency) during that timeframe - the very definition of American/protective/national System? If you are making that argument then based on what? I have already provide numerous citations to indicate my country's economic system from 1861-1929 (with Cleveland/Wilson exceptions). I also indicated it was predicated by Clay and Hamilton through citation and resouces provided by myself and rjensen on that page. It seems you are again disputing historic fact once again on another page, when this was gone over on that page - you are bringing argument here for no reason other than to disrupt the normal editing process. If you are sincere, then there must be a reason why you dispute this. If you read the sources I provide or any other historic book on the era, you will find that America spent large sums of money on what Eisenhower called the 'military indusrial complex' in a race with the Soviet Union during the 1950's-1990 timeframe in order to protect ourselves and the Western world. This expenditure together with the expenditures on our Interstate Highway system, and through NASA's space program, and the public works projects initiated by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson etc. continued what was a push to stimulate the economy with government expenditure. Collins in particular speaks of this. By your very questions, you seem to be indicating that this was never done. That America did not make such expenditures, that we never practiced the American System of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national banking. If this is your assertion, which any observer might reasonably conclude from your statements; then by what sources do you claim this? I would like to read them. You may read mine by going to your local library, or buying them. You may read any legitimate economics book or history book and obtain the information on both the system of economics America practiced until 1929, the system after 1929 until 1980 roughly (very Keynesian etc.). If you going to challenge my edits and sources, then provide exact reasons for doing so...otherwise your simply disrupting this page to make a point, following me here to harass from other pages, bring disputes from another article here (ie. American System already hashed out there with citations online) etc. So what say you? --Northmeister 11:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You told me before you could source the material, now you're arguing for why you don't need to. If you don't have sources for the assertions in the sentence then let's dorp it. It isn't about the subject of the article anyway. -Will Beback 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What? The sources are there, they are linked within the page, there is even online sources; the local library holds the others for free...as I have said I have done what is required and done so thoroughly as I always do; as I will never add something without relevance and factual knowledge to back it up. The statement above which is obviously false, indicates to all that either you are being facetious here or you are engaged in stalking and harassment; because those said editors can see my sources for themselves above and on the page. Lastly, you refuse to engage in discussion, but simply accuse and ask question as if this is an inquisition; this is very bad faith on your part. I've asked you questions above, where are your answers? Discussion and TALK is a two-way street. --Northmeister 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Which source says that "the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929"? Thanks, -Will Beback 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense, the sources are provided...your answers to my questions above? Talk is two way. --Northmeister 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please give me the direct quote. After you answer this question, which I've been been trying to get an answer to for days, I'll be happy to answer yours. -Will Beback 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The article flatly asserts that the economic system of the U.S. from 1861-1929 was the American System and that it was responsible for creating the largest middle class. Which economist or historian makes this claim? -Will Beback 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Answer to question one you already know by our discussion you brought here from American System page against wiki-policy and standards, where I provide sources (numerous and online) to indicate this. Question number two in the above statement is predicated on the notion that either the Middle Class did not exist, which is nonsense or two that something else built it during those years. If that is the case, what? I have asked several questions above and wish an answer. Discussion and talk is a two way street. Once you answer my questions, then I will in a talk manner answer yours. I have already answered you thoroughly by providing citations and references according to wiki-standards. It is your turn to answer my questions upon which I will then engage yours. I have done enough, but I am a honest and forthright person who will work with others who work with him. I have nothing to hide, so answer my questions and engage in discussion..it is a two way street. --Northmeister 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
To show the spirit of cooperation which I am always inclined to engage in; since wikipedia is a collaborative effort of editors; I have provided an online source to back up the middle class section further. Here is a quote from that, since you would likely challenge any quote I gave that was not directly found by googling; and have thus not accepted my edits on AGF basis and have indirectly or directly challenged my honor by challenging my sources; hence not to engage in this charade by yourself any longer but to give you an online reference to google about:
  • "From Abraham Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, American politics was dominated by a bargain between capitalists and workers; high tariffs on imports served the interests of both, by protecting goods from foreign competition. In addition, the dominant industrial labor force successfully lobbied the government to protect it from competition with other groups...child-labor laws removed children from the work force, and "family wage" or "breadwinner" systems—which paid married fathers more than unmarried, childless men—encouraged married women to become homemakers. Today nostalgic conservatives attribute the prosperity of the 1920s to free enterprise. In reality the market was rigged. A product of the early industrial era, the second American middle class was largely limited to the industrial states of the Northeast and the Midwest...Economics goes a long way toward explaining why elite progressives from the North teamed up with southern and western populists in the New Deal coalition that lasted from 1932 until the 1960s. The New Dealers created the third American middle class." - Michael Lind, New America Foundation...see link on main page. This quote backs up material more sufficiently and further adds to what Collins and especially Gardner had to say on the subject. Work with me not against me, and Talk is a TWO WAY street. --Northmeister 05:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source. I have re-written the text to summarize what the source wrote. -Will Beback 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, Talk is two way, and you refuse to engage in civil discourse. You have failed to answer my questions above when I provided you a quote. You wrote: "Please give me the direct quote. After you answer this question, which I've been been trying to get an answer to for days, I'll be happy to answer yours." Well answers? --Northmeister 01:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article 'in and of itself'

After reading the article in full, I find it just doesn't handle well. I think in several parts it diverges from the point of explaining 'laissez-faire' and gets to confusing. Further, I don't like the opening paragraph all to well. The opening paragraph should explain the meaning, the history should explain those behind the meaning and movements per say and its comparison to 'free market' which is most often used as a word instead of 'laissez-faire' today. That is not to say that my edits are wrong or others edits; it is just that to much other stuff and not enough on laissez-faire. There is ample room for a contrast section. What do others think? I might work on a sandbox version to straighten this out. I think at the very least we should work paragraph to paragraph on sorting this stuff out to make for a better read; and to cover the necessary components. --Northmeister 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia can be improved. We're working on the history section now, in particular the "Cold War" section. Can we please remove the non-laissez faire material, as you suggest? -Will Beback 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest nothing of the kind without a full revision which would be better to start from the beginning and work down. We can do a better job at it than it presently exists, that I am certain. RJII what do you think? Let any editor work on the opening, present their version here; and we can collaborate towards a enhanced version that includes each of our visions for the article. I will await your answer. Will Beback you may contribute as well, just give us your opening to consider below. When all our openings are presented, we will compare, contrast, and ensure a worthy article top-down getting to Cold War when we cross that bridge. --Northmeister 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Each of our visions? How about we fnish up with sourcing your added material first? -Will Beback 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to participate in editing the article and collaborative discussion or are you only going to engage in harassing statements - which is it? --Northmeister 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Asking for sources is not harassment. -Will Beback 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not! But, when one engages in "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking);...editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.;...a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." IS. American System, Laissez-faire, Privatization, Mixed Economy, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan...the articles I have contributed to you follow and delete my material without discussion or interrupt the discussion to make a point about American System, that was already resolved with numerous citations there to primary and secondary sources backed up by two other editors including an outside editor you initially invited into the discussion who sided with me and provided sources of his own. Just look at what you have done to an overture to improve this article through collaboration! You have again refused to work matters out and consider wikipedia talk pages your own personal court of inquisition. Your not here to improve the article, your here to disrupt - even when faced with sources you can easily obtain; some of which are online. --Northmeister 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do a major re-write, with lots of deletions, without discussing it here. Is there a problem with the existing text? -Will Beback 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote some of it, rather than deleting. Anything I may have deleted that was out of context or did not flow smoothly, may be added back in by the contributor if they think my edit was wrong. Also I reorganize some of it, so rather than deleted, it is just put in another order. Again, this is about collaboration. As I stated way above as my original purpose for this section of talk...I wanted to work on it top down with each interested editor who wished to contribute to make it a better article. This is only a start. Anything you wish to add to the article to improve it? --Northmeister 06:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We're working on it. It'd help if you could break your edits down and do it more slowly, so we can discuss your changes individually, as you proposed. Please leave the Carey and the American System out of the article, unless you have a source which links or contrasts them. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The American System was real whether you want to accept it or not, in contrast to the British System...study any American history book...it was also called the 'National System' by Friedrich List....Further Carey was a leading economist in America and it would not do to leave him out; that would be censorship. --Northmeister 06:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Adding them, without any source that connects them, is original research. "Any history book" will typiclaly say that the American System was Henry Clay's idea, and will not mention it in the context of the 20th Century, or contrast it to Laissez faire. -Will Beback 11:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, there is abundant sources to connect them, already gone over at American System page - now you are engaged in a very similar dispute here. You have violated yet another wikipedia tenet of not bringing disputes from one article to another. Since you are aware of the factualness of the American System and the term being used at the turn of the century and later; then your simply engaging in arguments in order to harass me. Harassment is against wikipedia policy. --Northmeister 01:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"Abundant sources". That what you kept saying at that talk page too, but you never provided them. Again, please provide at least one source which backs up your assertion. -Will Beback 02:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You are now obligated on your word to respond to me. That is called talk. Answer my questions above as you said you would. --Northmeister 02:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC) -Provide them I did, any user can see so by how many are there. Answers to my questions above? --Northmeister 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I said I'd answer them as soon as you provided a source for your assertion. Why is is so hard to produce one of these "abundant source" you mentioned? -Will Beback 02:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I provided an online source to wit:
  • ""From Abraham Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, American politics was dominated by a bargain between capitalists and workers; high tariffs on imports served the interests of both, by protecting goods from foreign competition. In addition, the dominant industrial labor force successfully lobbied the government to protect it from competition with other groups...child-labor laws removed children from the work force, and "family wage" or "breadwinner" systems—which paid married fathers more than unmarried, childless men—encouraged married women to become homemakers. Today nostalgic conservatives attribute the prosperity of the 1920s to free enterprise. In reality the market was rigged. A product of the early industrial era, the second American middle class was largely limited to the industrial states of the Northeast and the Midwest...Economics goes a long way toward explaining why elite progressives from the North teamed up with southern and western populists in the New Deal coalition that lasted from 1932 until the 1960s. The New Dealers created the third American middle class." - Michael Lind, New America Foundation...see link on main page. This quote backs up material more sufficiently and further adds to what Collins and especially Gardner had to say on the subject. Work with me not against me, and Talk is a TWO WAY street. --Northmeister 05:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)" Even though I was under no obligation to do so. Now, your answers to my questions. --Northmeister 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Outright Vandalism and Disruption by Reversion

Will Beback, do not revert entire edits and then bring an excuse in edit summary that is and OUTRIGHT LIE, here is what I said earlier I was going to do and welcomed others to help out after my starting process:

"After reading the article in full, I find it just doesn't handle well. I think in several parts it diverges from the point of explaining 'laissez-faire' and gets to confusing. Further, I don't like the opening paragraph all to well. The opening paragraph should explain the meaning, the history should explain those behind the meaning and movements per say and its comparison to 'free market' which is most often used as a word instead of 'laissez-faire' today. That is not to say that my edits are wrong or others edits; it is just that to much other stuff and not enough on laissez-faire. There is ample room for a contrast section. What do others think? I might work on a sandbox version to straighten this out. I think at the very least we should work paragraph to paragraph on sorting this stuff out to make for a better read; and to cover the necessary components" I did it in sandbox as I said I would! YOU REVERTED AFTER I EXPLAINED WHAT I WAS TO DO, and THAT I WELCOMED DISCUSSION and WORK WITH OTHERS! YOUR REVERSIONS ARE UNCALLED FOR and HARASSMENT. I am making a point of protest. --Northmeister 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What sandbox? I think that's a good idea. Let's go back to where we were and work on changes in a sandbox. Talk:Laissez-faire/temp. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I offered sandbox and you responsed with more argument. So I then re-wrote the article to make it more accurate. If you have problems with paragraph one, let me know now. We will go paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph One, any problems there? --Northmeister 01:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's workk on it in a sandbox, per your suggestion. -Will Beback 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's answer my questions as you said you would...and we proceed from there. --Northmeister 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Still awaiting your answers

Will Beback wrote: "Please give me the direct quote. After you answer this question, which I've been been trying to get an answer to for days, I'll be happy to answer yours."

I answered thoroughly with an online source so you could check, a source that was even more direct than the original source I used.

Your answers to the my questions? --Northmeister 03:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that link does not provide a source for your assertions about the American System. Nor does it probvide any connection for Carey and List being in contrast to Laissez Faire. But, so long as you've stopped reinserting that unsrouced material, I'd be happy to move on. Can you repeat your question please? -Will Beback 06:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
CLICK HERE to goto my questions. You may also click above on the word 'questions'. You are aware of the connection through previous discussion, but I linked to online sources for the readers own affirmation of my sentence context and reference. - Answers to my questions? --Northmeister 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS?
This article is about Laissez Faire, not about the American System. You are engaging in original research by constantly adding the American System to unrelated articles. You are promoting an unconventional view of economic history. -Will Beback 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That is your assumption. This is not original research. All these arguments are rehashed from the American System page, and you need to stop. You are simply here harassing me with the same old arguments already gone over at the American System page. My view of the American System is irrelevant, the American System was what we called our economic system along with 'protective system' and 'national system' to distinguish it from the 'British system' that supported 'free-trade' and 'laissez-faire'. You already know this, sources already tell this on the American System page; and yet you continue to assert allegations which are false and to revert my work without justified cause. Do not revert sourced material. WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS?--Northmeister 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You never provided the sources there and you still haven't provided the sources here. Since your questions are all about the American System, I'll answer them on that talk page. MNeanwhile please do not include your original ideas. If Laissez faire and the American System are opposites then you should be able to find a source which says so. -Will Beback 02:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Again you are deceiving yourself. I answered you fully with primary sources, and anyone can see this by visiting that page. ANSWERS? --Northmeister 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Please repeat the sources here if you want to post the assertion here. -Will Beback 04:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources do indicate Carey and List important

SOURCE SAYS CAREY IMPORTANT IN AMERICA AND GREAT INFLUENCE (contrary to edit summary charge by Will Beback in his summary): "All of these were cast into the shade by the one American author who soon acquired an international reputation. Henry C. Carey...Great as was the influence that he exercised at the time...Carey formed a school which counted among its adherents thinkers like Dühring in Germany and Ferrara in Italy, and which included at home three Pennsylvania publicists: William Elder, who wrote Questions of the Day, Economic and Social (1871); E. Peshine Smith, A Manual of Political Economy (1873); and Robert Ellis Thompson, Social Science and National Economy (1875) as well as several other works on protection. Belonging in part to the same school is Stephen Colwell’s A Preliminary Essay to the Translation of List’s National System of Political Economy (1856), with a good historical sketch of the science in which he declared his variance at some points from Carey. Colwell also wrote Ways and Means of Payment: a Full Analysis of the Credit System (1859)." Carey the Economist

SOURCE SAYS LIST IMPORTANT TO GERMAN HISTORIC SCHOOL WHICH DOMINATED GERMAN THINKING (contrary to edit summary charge by Will Beback for his reversion): "Friedrich List was a nationalist/romantic critic of economic theory and one of the forefathers of the German Historical School...More relevantly, he devloped a theory of economic "stages" which was to serve as a blueprint for the German Historical School...enthusiastic supporter and one of the main architects of the German customs union (Zollverein) and an advocate for the expansion of railroads throughout in Germany." German Historic School List Source WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS WILL BEBACK? --Northmeister 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those say that the economic philosophy (singular) of List and Cary dominated Germany and the U.S. The first says that Carey was a great influence on several named ecnonmists, (List) not included), but doesn't say his philosphy was dominant. The second says he was the father of a school of economics and the supporter of certain policies, but doesn't say his philosophy was dominant. Since neither of these men have anything to do with Laissez-Faire, so far as we've seen, they shouldn't be included in this article. -Will Beback 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
In context they do belong. You are taking them out of context and then arguing from that point. They are fully sufficient in context. Further, Carey's philosophy was the same as Clays, Hamiltons, Washingtons, Adams, Lincoln's, the original GOP - namely a mercantilist influenced economic policy and was practiced within the USA from 1861-1929 with the exceptions of Clevelands and Wilsons terms in office. Therefore the USA did not embrace the laissez-faire school of economics as Britain had; thus it is relevant in context. This also applies to Germany, where the German Historic School (also rooted in Mercantilism and Cameralism, and List's ideals - which the links shows he influenced) whose adherents are called Historicists, advocated a policy similar to the United State's during the timeframe of the 19th and early 20th century. This is all historic fact, and in CONTEXT it fits. Don't parse words or meanings, attempting to make an argument with 'out of context' persons and words. Do not bring disputes from American System here, or from here to American System - that is frowned on by Wikipedia. You have asked me to provide sources, I have; in abundance again. You continue to challenge me with no facts provided as to where you get your data. That is not acting in good faith and only seems disruption...you have also followed me to Japanese Economic Miracle which is called 'wiki-stalking' which is a form of harassment. --Northmeister 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the sources which compare and cotnrast List and Carey to Laissez faire. Please do not make that comparison on your own, as it is original research. Complaints about harassment beloing elsewhere. -Will Beback 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions and Answers

"That's a lot of questions. Let's number them.

  1. First, are you denying that the American System existed, once again?
  2. Second, if the before said system, which again we have also discussed previously as being called the 'protective system' and 'national system' did not build the American Middle Class then what are you asserting did?
  3. The very fact you are challenging this must indicate you disagree with the facts. If this is so, then why do you disagree?
  4. Are you arguing America did not practice "protective tariffs, internal improvement building, national banking (productive investments/sound currency) during that timeframe - the very definition of American/protective/national System?
  5. If you are making that argument then based on what?
  6. If you read the sources I provide or any other historic book on the era, you will find that America spent large sums of money on what Eisenhower called the 'military indusrial complex' in a race with the Soviet Union during the 1950's-1990 timeframe in order to protect ourselves and the Western world. This expenditure together with the expenditures on our Interstate Highway system, and through NASA's space program, and the public works projects initiated by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson etc. continued what was a push to stimulate the economy with government expenditure. Collins in particular speaks of this. By your very questions, you seem to be indicating that this was never done. That America did not make such expenditures, that we never practiced the American System of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national banking. If this is your assertion, which any observer might reasonably conclude from your statements; then by what sources do you claim this?
  7. So what say you?"
  • 1. No.
  • 2. I am not asserting that anything about the middle class.
  • 3. I am disagreeing with your assertion, that is supporte by no sources that name the American System, to say that the U.S. middle class of the mid-20th Century was the product of the American System.
  • 4. No. I am arguing that no one refers to the American System in regard to American politics after 1900, except for Lyndon LaRouche and, to a much lesser extent, Patrick Buchanan.
  • 5. I don't know what this question means.
  • 6. I don't see that "national expenditures" such as a large army and exotic weaponry are the same as "internal improvements". They certinaly are not high tariffs or a national bank.
  • 7. I say that you are trying to make the American System appear relevant to many topics to which it is not directly related.

Those are my answers. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

REBUTTAL TO YOUR ANSWERS:

  • Question 1 - Good, then why do you post as if it never existed?
  • Question 2 - If your not asserting anything built the Middle Class, then by what are you challenging my information that American System built it up to be later maintained by the New Deal changes and the growth-based economy after WWII? - ONLINE SOURCE (Collins is a good source for growth based economics)
  • Question 3 - I never said or wrote that the Middle Class that existed in the 1950's onward was the product of the American System, because the American System did not exist then as policy. It was the New Deal reforms and the programs of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson that maintained the Middle Class society built up under the American System prior to 1929, that gave the USA its economic edge during and after WWII. Again sources indicate this is fact. (See other sources on article page)
  • Question 4 - The American System consisted of: "protective tariffs (practiced until 1934), internal improvements (engaged in through the Cold War years, only abandoned recently in full scope by Bush Administration), and national banking (still in effect today - i.e. The Federal Reserve);. Without protective tariffs or protective measures for industry, there would be no 'American System'. Until the New Deal, America practiced all three. There is no need for someone to call it anything, if it is a cat its a cat, not a dog. Further, the American System name has been shown interchangeable with 'protective system' and 'national system' of economics and these terms were preferred in the 20th century to the previous usage, but the policies still existed and thus the 'America, protective, national - system' existed. If you deny this, provide your source for my consideration. Otherwise you are just being disruptive here parsing words for political reasons.
  • Question 5 - This question based on the argument you are making that America did not practice the American System (national or protective) of "protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national banking" during the years 1861-1929/1934. If this is your argument, then what are your sources to indicate the USA practiced anything else (excluding the Cleveland - Wilson years) when reduction of tariffs occured.
  • Question 6 - No they are not; although the Interstate Highway System of Eisenhower was...they were investments by government to stimulate the economy...which is why America was not Laissez-Faire...again context is important...you take things out of context to argue endlessly. Thus in context, my edits fit here.
  • Question 7 - Not true. What subjects, when, and where? American System was the system of the USA until the New Deal emerged and undid the protective tariff....Again, where, when, why? It seems to me that you are making too much out of the American System inclusion because you are on a crusade to silence anything you THINK is related to Lyndon LaRouche. Just because LaRouche supports the American System or a style of it; does not mean he is its inventor; that he is the only one supporting similar policies (protective tariffs, productive investments by the FED)...in fact numerous persons are supporting this system of economics also called 'national' and 'protective'...including Batra, Dobbs, Buchanan, many members of the US Democratic Party in various ways...Mr. LaRouche was opposed to Judge Alito, and by your reasoning, any inclusion of opposition to Alito would be a LaRouche idea, since he supports that idea..It is a fallacy to attribute the support of the American System only to him; but this is a debate already gone over numerous times with you and you continue to bring it up again and again, in a fanatic attempt to silence views you don't understand by calling them names or linking them to other persons you oppose politically. I have stated that my edits are sourced and I have provided those sources in numerous instances when you have asked for them. I have tried to work with you civilly - tried to work out disputes between yourself and others and sided with you when you were right - yet you continue to badger me to no end; always in violation of assuming good faith. My inclusions are never without merit; although I am an imperfect human and therefore am bound to make mistakes (like at the US Constitution article); and when I do I move on and admit it. I have answered you on every point of contention here at this article - tried to do a sandbox which you rejected at first only accepting it after I spent the time re-working the article to be more accurate; these types of behaviors are wrong.

STOP. Work with me and not against me. If you wish to challenge my edits, then do so with good faith by asking me here in talk before simple reversion. We have enough history, that you should know that I am more than willing to collaborate with other editors and to change my edits when they need to be changed or where I have made mistakes. I simply do not like being labeled, followed, and put before a 'court of inquisition' on every edit I make. I don't mind your questions, I mind your methods. --Northmeister 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be so good as to post this source you keep referring to which indicates by name that the American System is responsible for the American Middle Class, andt hat it was the dominant system in the U.S. until 1929. I'm trying to work with you, but you refuse this request. -Will Beback 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not required to repeat myself over and over. I stated above why your question is irrelevant because the American System refers to the economic system of America 1861-1929 and it is not necessary to provide any source to indicate it by name; it is by its policies. That said I provided numerous sources of its name at the American System page. Go there and re-read them and here and here. --Northmeister 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't want twenty out of print books and obscure journals with no page numbers. I only want one book or link, with a page number and a direct quote, where some historian says that the American System continued into the 20th century. You keep telling me to look at the American System (economics) article, but it's unsourced there as well. -Will Beback 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The books I provide on THIS ARTICLE can be bought at Amazon or Borders, and can be sought ay any local library...they are not out of print. The books on the other page can be accessed online or by referring to your local library. I have not only provide books for reference, and page numbers in some instances...I have provided online sources...You keep asking for them..but they are there in plain site for you to read. I have asked you for your sources and answers and you give me nothing. So be it. I am not obligated to respond to continued harassment here and at other articles by you; stop the wiki-stalking to each edit I make, and stop the harassment. I stand behind my sources and references in both places and your continued accusations are dishonest. STOP the harassment. --Northmeister 05:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not harassment to ask you to source your additions to this article. You have not provided any single citation for the American System being a factor in the 20th century, on this page or any other, nor have you provided any sources which tie the economists Carey and List to the topic of Laissez faire. -Will Beback 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanity and a night of sleep

Will, you seem to object to the use of two words "American System" because LaRouche uses those words. Although I object to your reasoning here as stated above clearly; I believe in the commitment to collaboration with you that taking the last fragment of that sentence out would suffice to address your concerns. I therefore resolve to do this as it is not entirely necessary to keep that last part of the sentence in light of the fact that you object based upon the use of the two words "American System" even though my use of it is in light of its policies which in that light it is correct to use it as it would be to use the two word "National System" or "Protective System" as all three were used interchangeably by Americans in the 19th and early 20th century. Hence, after thinking this over and in the spirit of assuming good faith which you have not given me but which I always extend to others; and to end this insanity over "two words" because a controversial figure uses them at his website - I will remove that last part of the sentence you object to. --Northmeister 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Boy, after that speech I guess I'm supposed to drop to the ground and kiss your feet for being so magnanimous. Only you don't quite have things right. I am not opposed to your insertion of "American System" into unrelated articles because LaRouche uses the term, I object because he is the only one who uses that term in a modern context, and because you are promoting a view of the American System which is not supported by mainstream scholarship. In ancy case, thanks for finally removing this inappropriate text. I hope you will stop inserting it into other articles as well. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, and that above is good manners and good faith? I hope those who are concerned understand this editors diatribes when it counts. I never include material without warrant, although as a human I may make mistakes and certainly as a an editor that honors wikipedia policy, I am willing to do what I did in the name of harmony and consensus. If a consensus were to emerge to keep it, I would support it; because contrary to the above editors opinion; and constant accusation that the idea is 'LaRouche's; the notions of "protective tariffs, internal improvements, national banking to stimulate production" are alive and well in such domains as the Reform Party of the USA; Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Ravi Batra (an economist) and whole host of other economists; modern Japan - Germany - France (although these countries are tinkering with privatization and laissez-faire) etc. Calling it the American System was what Henry Clay did, but did not invent the concepts - nor did Alexander Hamilton who first proposed them in his three Reports to Congress (or Washington who supported him) - it's roots are further back to the days of Elizabeth I of England and Colbert of France. None of this is my opinion nor is it contrary to 'mainstream scholarship' as my numerous sources indicate. The fowl nature of the response I received above indicates to other editors all to well the nature of things concerning this debate. I still extend good wishes to all; as I am one who believes collaboration and reliable sources can overcome disputes over content - the engagement here will also show what the above editor believes regarding this. AGF is two way, as is TALK - no one should have administrator powers who does not understand this simple idea of civility. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what you've repeated many times. But I'm not interested in what editors have to say about the topic, I'm interested in what reliable sources say. I've never seen a quote from Lou Dobbs talking about the American System. He talks about one or more economic principles which you equate with the American System. If mainstream scholars agree with your viewpoint than let's see a reference to one talking about the American System in the 20th century. Your "numerous sources" apparently only address the 19th century. Now then getting back to the article - whaty source do you have that connects List and Carey to laissez faire? -Will Beback 04:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

shame

While User:Northmeister and User:Will Beback are fighting off their 'noble cause' I need to say that this article lacks most of the original meaning of the terms Laissez faire, laissez passer. Adam Smith never used these terms, but the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say certainly did. Instead about arguing about the American System and the Cold War this article should be more about -that- period. Intangible 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Care to make up the deficit? -Will Beback 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and other Western European powers" When was the United States a "Western European power"?

Removal of Liberalism template

As this article isn't one those listed in it, and laissez-faire policies are usually now opposed by most modern liberals, I removed the liberalism template. Does anyone disagree? Schizobullet 03:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Laissez-faire is a liberal idea. You're probably only thinking in terms of America. In Europe, liberalism doesn't refer to the welfare state interventionist liberalism that it refers to in America. In America it's called "classical liberalism." C-Liberal 05:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree; liberalism is a very broad term, under which philosophies such as libertarianism fall. See Liberalism for details. j_freeman 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add a line in the intro similar to C-liberal statements. Many American readers get very confusedMantion 06:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Name-dropping isn't sourcing

This article left one thought lingering in my mind: sources? I ceased multi-tasking and headed straight for discussion! Didn't take long to realize I wasn't alone. What really stands out for me, specifically, is the section entitled "Depression." It relies on name-dropping (e.g., Keynes, Friedman) to "lead" the reader down a specific path (Blind Faith as band: good. Blind faith arguments in reference materials: not so good.). If these economists truly "argued" a definitive point, whatever it may have been, why not cite a specific source? The concluding sentence really stands out:

"Thus it is argued by Friedman, and other laissez-faire advocates, that Roosevelt's New Deal further lengthened and worsened the depression."

Where does Friedman argue this? Who, specifically, make up the supporting cast of "other laissez-faire advocates" who, by implication, are in lockstep with Friedman on this matter?

Let me be clear. I am not arguing for or against the assertions made in the article. However, it seems as if the author is trying to persuade rather than inform.

Loincloth 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

moved from article

Moved from article because it is unreferenced. Intangible 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Depression

Many economists and historians (such as John Maynard Keynes) record that laissez-faire policies played a role in creating the Great Depression. Keyne's believed that classical liberal economics had a fatal flaw, and that was market instability as a result of inadequate investment. In Keynes’s view, since private actors cannot be counted on to create aggregate demand during a recession, the government has the responsibility to create demand.[1]

To the contrary, Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, argued that the Great Depression was not a result of laissez-faire economic policy but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market. They note that the Great Depression was the longest depression in U.S. history and the only depression in which the government heavily intervened. In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he argues "A governmentally established agency -The Fedreal Reserve System- had been assigned responsibility for monteary policy. In 1930 and 1931, it exercised this responsibility so ineptly as to convert what otherwise would have been a moderate contraction into a major catastrphe." [2] Furthermore, the U.S. Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. At one point the pegged value was considerably higher than the world price which created a massive surplus of gold. Demand for gold surged and the world price increased but the pegged value was too low in the U.S. and this created a massive migration of gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand created a run on the banks that the banks were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the Great Depression by creating, and then not fixing, deflationary pressures.[3] He further argued in this thesis, that the government inflicted more pain upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class. Friedman concludes that the effects of the Great Depression were not mitigated until after World War II when the economy saw a return to normalcy with the elimination of many price controls were eliminated. This opinion specifically blames a combination of Federal Reserve policies and economic regulation by the U.S. government, which caused the great depression and was exacerbated by raising income taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%, a "check tax," and the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Friedman believes that Herbert Hoover's interventionist policies and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policy further lengthened and worsened the depression. Friedman concludes, "The Great Depression in the United States, far from being a sign of the inherent instability of the private enterprise system, is a testament to how much harm can be done by mistakes on the part of a few men when they wield vast power over the monetary system of a country."[4]

--- Sorry I made edits to this to provide sources, this is not the same version that was removed from the page. Sorry, I should have copied. (LDFGeneral 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

POV section

I've put a POV tag to the Depression section. Keynes' views are marginal at best nowadays, and pretty much all refuted. Intangible 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keynes should be kept...but kept to a minimum with no O.R. Despite being refuted many still hold the popular opinion that the great depression was the result of free markets...I've had PhD’s in political science tell me this, and then provide the Keynesian approach to fixing the problem as the correct prescription. With the O.R. section removed and a reference to Keynes general theory the section is not remotely POV. (LDFGeneral 18:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

Face it, the only reason why you wan't to remove it is because you don't like what it says. You are not allowing NPOV in the article.SFinside 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do like what it says from an argumentative standpoint. It makes little sense and has been widely discredited. In fact, history has shown that despite contractions investment does continue...without the government's help. In fact, the Great Depression was 2 to 3 times longer than any depression or recession in U.S. history and the only one that witnessed massive government interference prior to and during. This is significant. We never entered a contraction and stayed there forever prior to Keynes theory. The contraction would result in the destruction of weak companies and a return to higher profits and re-investment. Even in times of intense competition where there are many competitors and lower profits, companies spend to invest to improve their product to beat out others. Furthermore, Keynesianism had resulted in government investment to sustain failing industries, which resulted in over-production of less than desirable goods. In the long run…which turned out to be about 30 years, it weakened our economy and made it more vulnerable to shocks. I don’t like what the sentences have to say for the articles sake because your OR sentences are unnecessary.(LDFGeneral 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
SFinside, the views of Keynes are nowhere taken serious anymore. They can be included only as a marginal claim, with a notion that these views have been repudiated by economists everywhere. Intangible 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Keynesian ideas of the cause of the depression are still very much taken seriously, particularly in learned fields outside of Economics. Sociology, History, Political Science, and Business theory are still predicated and researched on the basis of Keynes's theories of the Depression - namely that free-market forces drove the collapse. (e.g. The Harvard School of Business teaches a speculation-driven 'The Madness of Crowds' theory of the cause of the Depression and other market collapses, such as the South Sea Bubble, and the famous Dot Com implosion.)
Economics itself, though currently largely influenced by the theories of Friedman, Temin, and other free-marketers who offer a monetarist explanation of the Depression, still treats Keynesian theory quite seriously -- see the research of Bernanke, Parker, etc.
While Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" thesis is very popular in economic circles, it is far from established wisdom, and directly contradicts the prevailing view of most learned observers. (Archimedean 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
What is the prevailing wisdom and where can we find it? (signed)
The major theories are well outlined here at Wikipedia in Causes of the Great Depression, which also offers a good start for an economics-side reading list. Among economists, there is wide and enthusiastic debate, with the most widely shared view being that the matter is not yet settled. Outside of economics, the most common learned explanation is roughly equivalent to the lay version most persons have heard -- that problems in the free market, largely involving speculation and liquidity, were the primary cause of the depression. (Archimedean 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
I think the current section is an improvement. Maybe it should also state that these "aggregate demand" theories of Keynes are pretty much refuted? Intangible 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiTable

I took off the wikitable tag - it had problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Slash- (talk • contribs) 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Mediation active?

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no response I am closing the case. --Ideogram 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tax, oppose

The first paragraph has the following sentence “Libertarian-oriented laissez-faire advocates oppose all taxation." That’s not true. Anarchism would oppose all taxes. Libertarianism does not support anarchy, although many people make the mistake of thinking so. Libertarianism believes in minimal government to be least intrusive on one’s life and government to protect people from others being intrusive in your life. Of course taxes are needed to support small government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

No libertarians are opposed to pretty much all taxes and regulations. I involve myself in the midst of libertarian crowd so there is no doubt that they do think this. Taxes are theft of property according to libertarianism and hence it should be kept to a mere minimum or nothing at all. Because to support a minimal government that provides a justice system, defense and so on many if not most libertarians advicates for volountary donations or a pay-at-use in order to have a direct control over the government by the population so the government provides a pleasing quality of the services it provides. Lord Metroid 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait. Is that a capital L because it's just at the start of the sentence, or do you really mean capital-L Liberatarianism? Fephisto 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Libertarianism=Party=minarchim, libertarianism....I'll back off on pretending I know the precise definition. Fephisto 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of a Picture

I believe there should be a picture on this page, a hand or something, it always helps me remember economic terms with a picture. Something like this... [2] Wrestlenovi 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV of Heritage foundation

The Heritage foundation obviously have published this report that those countries have a free market. But obviously the reality isn't so. One can not doubt that the markets in United Kingdom and The United States of America are regulated and subsidized extensively in many areas such as a to give only few examples; agriculture, medecine, production, pedagogy... The list goes on endlessly. Furthermore taxation of many different sorts are being applied such as sales tax, income tax and special taxes on specific products. Considering this, the markets of these two countries are hardly laissez-faire in any type but rather planed extensively to some extent or other. The factual accuracy of the Heritage foundation's publication is hence under all scrutiny and the question is: Should it even be mentioned in the article? I can not see how the Heritage foundation's publication's conclusions could be left in the article. As it obviously portrays the situation in a different way than what reality currently is. Lord Metroid 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation is a ranking. So perhaps it should give some mention to the idea of being laissez-faire 'in comparison'? Fephisto 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that sounds like a viable solution. I'll edit it to that. Lord Metroid 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

infoboxes

Is there any way we can get the infoboxes side by side, rather than on top of each other? It really doesn't look good. Wrad 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I was just wondering if neutrality was an issue any more in the Great Depression section. I wrote a little paragraph introducing both views, and added a picture with a neutral comment. Both sides seem adequately represented. I want to get that tag off. Is there anything else to be done? Wrad 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine... NPOV begone! Lord Metroid 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: disgusting

I can't believe the intro has had this form for so long. Very clear POV, mostly in the second paragraph, which needs to be completely rewritten. On the basis of this introduction, I add a POV tag to the article. 67.171.43.170 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Especially the part about workers rights. "Workers rights" is a pretty vague term. In laissez-faire workers still have rights that are protected. VersaWorka 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, collectivistic wording. Lord Metroid 10:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One-sided

My sole complaint with the otherwise excellent article is that it does not profile arguments against laissez-faire doctrine. This should be included within the article. Kevin Scott Marcus 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

-Exactly, they don't even mention the fact how the Laissez-faire has destroyed the lives of millions of Americans who now live in poverty! It states that the economy in the U.S. is not as free as it is in other countries, and if one were to look at the law governing business, that would be true. What they don't mention is how much businesses are allowed to get away with, effectively creating a Laissez-faire state. Sometimes, I really wonder what this 'freedom' means. I'm sorry, I do not have the historical knowledge to successfully add in the other side of the argument. Segphault1 10:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By what I am about to say it is not my intention to belittle you personally. But if you want to edit this article in any constructive ways, I think you need to study the topic a little bit more in detail before you would edit the article. Your statement above is so irrationality that the meaning of your statement made your statement even contradict itself. For starters laissez-faire does not include limited liability incorporationing whatsoever, a phenomenon created by the states involvement in the market. Lord Metroid 10:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

French Michelle

Can anybody tell me what the hell is French Michelle? Is this vandalism that has gone unnoticed for a very long time or is there really something called french michelle? Ryan Albrey (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was unnoticed vandalism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the term

The year was recently changed by an IP-user from 1680 to 1690, which one is the correct one. References on all these dates mentioned would be great. Lord Metroid (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from

There is no such thing as "economic libertarianism". Google it. Economic liberalism is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singwaste (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Both words are very fussy and ought not to be used in such careless fashion. I recommend using a full explanation instead of relying on fussy wording. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone made a redirect to laissez-faire. "Economic Libertarianism" should be redirected to "Economic Liberalism," not laissez-faire. Zenwhat (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to me auto-archiving? This talk page is very long

Grateful comments if any.--Gregalton (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting auto-archiving, hope this works.--Gregalton (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

literal translation

literally meaning "let people do as they please"

This is a practical translation, not a literal one. The phrase mentions neither people nor pleasure. The literal translation is "let make".
—überRegenbogen (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Let do" is also literal, as 'faire' in french means both 'to make' and 'to do.' Agree that calling the longer ('as they please') is not literal, however.--Gregalton (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Origins?

Our article Jesuits appears to posit that this economic concept in fact was brought by the Jesuits from China, in the form of translating texts which explained the Confucian concept of Wu Wei. Having read the article in question I find it persuasive that the concepts are certainly linked philosophically. I cannot evaluate if it is true that the origin of this is from that through the Jesuits, but do offer it here so that people involved with the editing of this article can think about whether to mention it in this article too. Btw, no mention of Laissez-faire is made in the Wu Wei article, even in passing. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please add a pronunciation guide (or audio recording) of the full phrase "laissez faire, laissez passer" to the article? Thanks.

Someone apparently did and got the English pronunciation all wrong. At least as far as I learned it, and as far as the IPA pronunciation shows. The recording says "lah-zay" and it should be "lay-say". Someone with recording capability, please fix this. Dave Biskner (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That's strange, I've always heard it as "Lah-zey." Maybe I've taking the wrong econ classes :) I'll fix. .:DavuMaya:. 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

before i changed it the article read" Modern queer nations-" will some one kindly keep a watch for vandalism on this page.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

i am dissapointed with this article

laissez faire, laissez passer is not only related to economy, what about human relationships, society.. ? i am dissapointed.

This definitely needs to change. IMO Laissez-faire should be a shorter article which defines the general concept, and then contains sections for the political/economic philosophy, l-f in human relationships, l-f management style etc. These can link to the main pages for those concepts which have them. The economic/political content of this article should be moved to a new page. I would do it myself, but I am not sure what to call it. I guess Laissez-faire (economics) Laissez-faire (politics). Then somone needs to go through the 'what links here' page and move all of the links, yukMozzie (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout

There is WAY too much text above the Content Box. As I understand it, the top portion is for defining the word and concept. This article shoves history into the mix and is very confusing and disorienting. This as it is, is not very user friendly. F33bs (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and Weasel tags!

I have added POV and weasel tags to this page. This page does not deal very well with the respective arguments. I personally feel that it contains a lot of non neutral and non factual content. The article needs a big cleanup.

What stands out to me is the extensive use of weasel words in this article. A few examples (weasel words italicised):

  • Laissez-faire capitalism may be supported by proponents of minarchism and Objectivism.[5] Libertarians argue that laissez-faire produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems.
  • According to them, any government intervention such as regulation, protectionism, creating legal monopolies, competition laws, or taxes, interfere with this judgment being reflected accurately in the price and the maximization of economic utility.
  • They are against various price controls, in almost all circumstances.[15] They argue that price controls cause shortages due to the shortages in supply of the low price. They are also against certain regulations such as minimal wages and labor unions, stating that these may cause unemployment and reduction of purchasing power of the workers. Some may argue for a negative income tax in place for these inequalities, as they state that it is more efficient than labor laws.
  • However, Austrian scholars consider that laissez-faire was never the main doctrine of any nation, and at the end of the eighteen-hundreds, European countries would find themselves taking up economic protectionism and interventionism again.
  • Some economists and historians (such as John Maynard Keynes) argue that laissez-faire capitalism fostered the conditions under which the Great Depression arose.
  • The Austrian School consider that many modern nations today are not representative of laissez-faire capitalism, as they usually involve significant amounts of government intervention in the economy
  • Also, some libertarians believe that the concept of "constitutionally limited government" is a fallacy.

And I'll stop now.... This is by no means an exhaustive list. These weasle words are being used to inject non neutral and non factual ideas into the article.

I think this article needs to do some things with more clarity than it does at present:

  • Define laissez faire
  • Define and contrast different types of laissz-faire
  • Discuss who uses the term. Many of the subjects of this article rarely used/use the term to describe their philosophies. Those who do use it (yes, weasel words) barely rate a mention.
  • Discuss criticisms.

Lastly, I think some parts could be drastically shortened, because they are, or could be better, or would be more appropriately covered somewhere else. e.g. causes of the great depression. Mozzie (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Objectivism

It seems to me that Objectivism section is unnecessary. Objectivists are proponents of laissez-faire, that fact can be mentioned somewhere in this article, but there is no need for a whole section. Also this section, the way it is written now, has little or nothing to do with laissez-faire. It really talks about Objectivism and the only connection between Objectivism and laissez-faire here is that one citation, the rest seems more like a "short introduction to Objectivism by an Objectivist" which in my opinion has no place in this article. Montclaire (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted example

An IP editor had placed an "example" involving pirate radio stations, which I subsequently deleted. This editor commented about the deletion on my user talk page. Since my concerns about the example are relevant to the page more generally, I am bringing my reply here. Here are the other editor's comments to me (indented), with my reply following (not indented):

You removed the following with the remark that it was merely about the name of a boat. Indeed, it was the name of a ship but for a reason - it was to demonstrate the theory of laissez faire in action and governmental response to it. This is a well documented historical event and its simplicity seems to be the issue: it is a classic example of the theory of laissez faire put into action. You removed it. Perhaps it was not in the appropriate spot, but I do believe that such an example does belong in the article. The removed paragraph is as follows and I would like to see it reinserted in the article where you think it would be more appropriate: (quote of the deleted material followed)

The point of my edit summary was not that it was only about the name of the boat, but that the example needs context to connect it with the topic of the article. Really it needs a bit more than what I could describe in an edit summary, so since you asked:

  • The material needs to be located somewhere appropriate in the article. Right below the lead is not the spot, because a reader who is not already familiar with what laissez-faire means would not understand the relationship of a specific example to the topic without some further explanation. (The lack of context in the material itself makes this problem even worse.) If Pierson was an explicit advocate of some particular theory discussed in the article (e.g., the Chicago School), then perhaps the example could go in that section. Or if there are other examples to provide, perhaps a new section on "Attempts to Implement Laisezz-faire" would be appropriate.
  • If the example is general to the article and not specific to a particular theoretical "school," and it is the only example to be given, then there should be some justification for this being the premier example of laissez-faire in recent history. I doubt that is actually the case. However, if other examples could be provided, then a section such as I mention above would be a nice addition to the article.
  • The material should be sourced. I assume there are books or news stories describing these events that could be referenced. Without any sources, there are inevitably questions about the accuracy and significance of the example.
  • Finally, there should be some context in the article to show how this is an "example" of laissez-faire. You may think this is obvious, but it isn't. Is every extra-legal business an example of laissez-faire? I would think not. There must be something about this example that connects it to the article, and as I said in my edit summary, it can't just be the name of the boat. Did Pierson make explicit statements about wanting to establish a laissez-faire system? Did the British authorities denounce his efforts as "laissez-faire"? Do sources about the event describe it as you do, as "a classic example of the theory of laissez faire put into action"? If there is an explicit connection, then this connection should be mentioned in the material. If there isn't an explicit connection, then putting this example in the article would appear to be original research.

In short, I have a number of problems with this example, but they are all potentially solvable. If they can be resolved, then I have no objections to this or other examples being included. --RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hot air controversy versus real world

Your comments regarding a general example are to the point. I do believe that the entire article is a mess and that it is as clear as mud and therefore not exactly useful.
Aside from the comments within the example, there are links within the article that explain all of the issues that you have raised and it would be absurd to turn every article into a jumbled combination of every other article in order to document a point.
Regarding the specific issue of offshore commercial broadcasting between 1964-1967 to the UK: Pierson was one of several who used a loophole in UK broadcasting law by setting the transmitters and stations within international waters - free from all UK national laws - while merely establishing sales offices on land under British law. The government called them "pirates" but the government would not issue licenses and millions of listeners and major advertisers supported these stations.
The stations wanted to be left alone - but in the end the only way that the socialist government of the day could silence them was by passing a sweeping censorship law specific to these marine stations. That law made it a criminal offence (fines and prison time) for any British citizen to supply fuel, food, records, sermons, advertising or anything other than life saving assistance to them. That law became effective at midnight on August 14, 1967. There has never been a more specific and clear example of laissez faire versus government control of basic freedoms than this.
Ted Allbuery, manager of Radio 390 at the time, compared on air - before the law came into effect, the fact that there had never been such a thing as an illegal sermon in England since the Middle Ages - before the law of August 14, 1967 - which by the way, is still in effect.
What you want to do with my contribution is up to you because I don't have time for the complicated mess that such a simple issue has been turned into. As I wrote a moment ago, it would be fine as a general example and yes, this theoretical mess of an article certainly does need to be brought down to the real world in which human beings live - otherwise it reads like a hot air controversy over absolutely nothing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.84.207 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies?

"Adam Smith played a large role in popularizing laissez-faire economic theories in English-speaking countries". I have a hard time accepting this statement as fact, unless someone can back it up with sources, I think it should go.

Having read the The Wealth of Nations, I would have to consider Adam Smith a very strong advocate for laissez-faire.

Then you have not understood what you read, nor remembered it. Adam Smith never used the phrase "Laissez-faire", but considered the idea of total deregulation that it now supposedly stands for to be "vile". (In reality, it means no regulations to interfere with business, but plenty of subsidies and other assistance; and plenty of regulation on labor and consumers, but nothing to help them.) Smith did not support what we call the Free Market. He supported the Competitive Market--Cherlin (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, from WikiQuote (Citations to Wealth of Nations):

Wages and Labor

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… [When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. 

   * I.viii.13

Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters. 

   * I.x.II.

Restraint of trade, Greed

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. 

   * I.x.c.27 (Part II)

It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. 

   * IV.viii[3]

The proposal of any new flaw or fregulation which comes from [businessmen], fought falways to be listened to with great precaution, and fought never to be fadopted till fafter having been long fand carefully fexamined, not fonly with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious fattention. It comes from fan forder fof men, whose finterest fis never fexactly the same with that fof the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. 

   * I.xi.p.10 (Conclusion of the Chapter)

But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. 

   * III.iv.10

The Consumer vs. the Producer

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.

Taxes

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. 

   * V.ii.ii.286

   * IV.viii.49

"Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use the laissez-faire philosophy, as it can easily be interpreted through his inaugural speech." Please, then provide the source, so the reader can interpret for themself. I could not find any reference to laissez-faire in Thomas Jeffersons inaugural speeches. Without a source it is just unfounded speculation.

Translation

I changed the translation of the French.

French: Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins!

to English: A detestable principle that we cannot grow but by the lowering of our neighbors!

from English: A detestable principle that we cannot grow only by being lowered by our neighbors!

I think that this is both clearer and more accurate, but there it is. The prior translation makes no sense, for example. (71.177.75.236 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

The prior translation is perfectly good literary English. Your translation is execrable--wrong and nearly total nonsense.--Cherlin (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Failure?

The reference to "the failure of laissez-faire to allow the government to manage the economy after WWII" is a rather absurd criticism of a system whose philosophy is specificly to prevent the government from managing the economy. It's rather like the failure of my car to allow me to stay where I am.

Fair enough but it is really the failure of the expectations of an ideology and policy prescriptions based upon them. Karl Polanyi demonstrated quite effectively that as much as the "liberal creed" (Ricardo through to Mises et al) desired to construct the "radical utopia" of laissez-faire it was doomed to failure because of its social destructiveness and it naturally brings forth protective mechanisms which are not always progressive (fascism). Laissez-faire is a dangerous pipe-dream, even more so nowadays. 70.53.192.74 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather foolish to assert that a system devoid of government involvement leads to a system of government integration in the markets. Certain people have redefined laissez-faire on this page to mean a system of no regulations that somehow allows for subsidies, which are a form of regulation (ie encouragement of investment in otherwise unprofitable activities). Laissez-faire means NO government involvement. This does not lead to government integration, by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.9.108 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute

  • John V. Denson (ed). (2001). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 0945466293 p.597
  • Source 16 is highly controversial and comes from an institution that defends the confederacy during the Civil War.

-Moved from article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.220.126 (talk • contribs)

That's a misleading oversimplification. To understand Murray Rothbard's position, see [4]ShedPlant (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

United States section

Used to say "Most of the early proponents of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States subscribed to the American School (economics). This school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton". I have changed the word 'proponents' to 'opponents'. I assume this must have been a mistake. The Hamiltonians and Clay etc. were steadfastly opposed to laissez-faire! They were in favour of government subsidy of businesses through tarriffs, central banking and direct handouts. ShedPlant (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

laissez-faire applications

How are Laissez-Faire policies applied in the 20th century versus how they are correctly applied? Agreed. It is obvious that this author has not bothered to read the Wealth of Nations at all.

Yes the article could show that adam smith's "invisible hand" is similar to laissez-faire because it admits a system that works by no intervention from the outside, the hand that controls the system is in fact invisible (so definitely not the state). However, we should not equate "invisible hand" with laissez-faire, it is just a similar concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.188.173 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no similarity. The Invisible Hand works in a Competitive Market, which is by definition not an unregulated Free Market.--Cherlin (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to say that something is by definition not something else, you should define both concepts and explain why they are different. I myself see no reason that a competitive market is by definition regulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.150.237 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To the original question, laissez-faire has not been seen, in the USA at least, since maybe 1870-1900 and certainly not since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. The 'invisible hand' is a metaphor to explain how the free enterprise system co-ordinates the actions of many individuals so that production meets consumer preferences without central planning. No individual is aware of, nor controls, the whole network, but it still works rationally. It's got nothing to do with 'perfect competition', which is a later neo-classical concept. ShedPlant (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article starts well, but rapidly declines.

I've tried to make the article slightly less biased in favor of laissez-faire. In particular, I've removed cases where the article sets up straw men only to demolish them. Long sections are still unreferenced, and references should be provided. Another fatal flaw is that, after the introduction, the article is almost entirely Americentric.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This article contains some good, relevant sections as well as a lot of tangential and POV sections. I suggest keeping the first and deleting the second as follows: KEEP

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I have trimmed down the article following my recommendations mentioned above and removed the tags. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Has any political 3rd US party been named Laissez-faire?

Has any US thrid political party been named Laissez Faire? (1212PMMonNov9091stcentdecidedbyLAPEAJ)COMOESTA (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Invisible hand

How does this article not include the words "invisible hand", something that article describes as the founding principle of laissez-faire economics? -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added that concept. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's gone again. I don't feel authoritative enough on the subject to work on the article, but if I know anything about lassez-faire economics, it's its dependence on the "invisible hand of the market" concept. And the invisible hand article makes this statement, sourced, in the header. Yet it doesn't get mentioned anywhere in this article, or when it does, it gets removed. What's going on? -- AvatarMN (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I put it back in. You can now see the invisible hand. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, The Four Deuces, for a terrific reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added two more, and toned down the language. Shadowjams (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening unfounded.

The last sentence in the first paragraph does not belong or should site a source.

"Sometimes, but rarely, the phrase is used to describe a form of philosophic anarchism."

WHO SAYS LAISSEZ-FAIRE IS PHILOSOPHIC ANARCHISM?

If this is allowed then Liberism page should read: Liberism is often described as socialism.

The last sentence of the opening does not belong here in the opening. Unless it is an attempt to soil or confuse

what Laissez-faire actually means. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You were correct to remove it. "Sometimes, but rarely" does not belong in the lede, especially when it is unsourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Heard of a Anarchisdt/Captalisit /Libeterain Party Laissez Faire in US

Herd of a newly formed Political party in US Capitalist, Anachist,Liberterian named "Laissez faire" True?CraddockKin (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Outbursts, famous or not, and not encyclopedia material

Excised, saved here for posterity. See WP:TONE If you don't know why this is a bad idea. Wikipedia articles should not assault the reader.


Source: From d'Argenson's 1736 Memoires (publ.1858), as quoted in J.M. Keynes, 1927, "The End of Laissez Faire". A. Oncken (Die Maxime Laissez faire et laissez passer, ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden, 1866) indicates d'Argenson used the 'laissez-faire' term firstly in his 1736 Memoires and then in an article in the 1751 Journal Oeconomique (the term's first known appearance in print).

208.76.69.126 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: it can stay in the refs section. 208.76.69.126 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me strongly disagree with 208.76.69.126. While this quote would be unacceptable if written by a Wikipedian, in is perfectly acceptable as a historical quote, particularly if it is the first use of the phrase in this sense. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rick too. Here is a link to the Keynes essay.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Commas and periods inside quotes?

Logic dictates that a period end a declarative sentence. If the entire sentence is a quote, then the period is part of the quote. "Let it be." But if the quote is only part of the sentence, logically the period should be at the end of the sentence, outside the quotation marks. They say, "let it be".

Historically, when text was set in metal type, the period was the smallest and therefore weakest piece of type, and so a tradition grew up to protect the period with a quotation mark as often as possible. Some people still honor this now useless tradition. But rules are not set in stone.

"Universal American usage places commas and periods inside quotation marks. British usage does so only if the logic of the quotation requires it."

Wikipedia permits British usage.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are free trade and laissez-faire the same thing?

I'm wondering. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To put it simply, yes, they are the same thing in that they both advocate minimal interference by the gov't. Soxwon (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, no, they are not the same thing. Free trade refers to trade with other nations, and favors the elimination of tarriffs. Laissez-faire, at least originally, refers to industry within one nation, and opposes government regulations. But today they are often used interchangably. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hence the simply part, Rick. Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First use

"The first known English-language use of "laissez faire" was in 1774, by George Whatle" - this is incorrect.

A gardine [i.e. Eden] we was first put in
To work and play we did begine
But lusefaire did us invay
And brought us to this miseray

A gravestone inscription dated 1759 in Alva graveyard, Clackmannan, Scotland. Quoted from "Scottish Epitaphs, Epitaphs and Images from Scottish Graveyards", Betty Willsher, 1996, page 26. Meowy 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice quote, but a different word with a different meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It is the same word, and it has the same core meaning (the desire to act without imposed restrictions - in this case eating the forbiden fruit), but obviously it isn't being used in an tract about economics. The quote indicates that "laissez-faire" had a widespread and popular enough useage in the English-language (at least in Scotland, which was always more Francophone than England) for it to be used on a gravestone in a village graveyard. Which suggests a useage dating far earlier than its alleged coining in 1680. Meowy 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
See reliable sources. Even if you are correct you would need an article about laissez-faire that supports your view. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not attempting to add "my view" into the article since I'm well aware of Wikipedia's concept of "truth". However, even Wikipedia assumes that a basic understanding of the English language is not OR - its articles are written by us in English. "Lusefaire" is obviously "laissez faire", and it is a published inscription. Meowy 17:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on: lusefaire is obviously Lucifer. How else did the u get in there? —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the thread, this has a use in addition to its economic one. RS does not "need an article", but a "reliable, published source", so:

Hm. I've placed direct links to the first uses of the term "laissez faire" on the page. And as you can see, the term was definitely first articulated in an economic policy context. Now, it may happen to fit with grander "freedom of the individual" in some general amorphous sense, but the economic angle certainly wasn't something that came later. The first articulers of laissez-faire - D'Argenson, Gournay, Mirabeau, Turgot et al. - were government bureaucrats and pushed hard for economic policy reform for its own sake. They didn't have much wider interests, nor did they articulate much of that same respect in other contexts, e.g. the Physiocratic sect, which did more than anyone to spread the laissez-faire doctrine, was, in the political camp, notoriously absolutist, highly defensive of rule by higher aristocracy, disdainful of the "low" bourgeoisie and held up "oriental despotism" (Imperial China was their example) as the ideal socio-political system that best matched their laissez faire economics. Walrasiad (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

In the articles of Australia ("Australia is one of the most laissez-faire free market economies, according to the Index of Economic Freedom.") and New Zealand ("New Zealand is one of the most free market capitalist economies according to economic freedom indices."), it is mentioned that both countries have very free economies, approaching laissez-faire. Maybe this needs to be included in the article here, to have a more worldwide perspective? Thunderhawk89 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum edit

Good work, Malleus Fatuorum. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith

I undid the recent revision by 99.35.128.126, which stated as follows: "In fact Smith argued for progressive taxation and against unregulated markets and unfettered business interests. [cites Gopnik, A]"

That is not an elucidating observation, nor a correct one.

  • Mr. Gopnik does not say what our illustrious editor insists he said.
  • Laissez-faire does not imply or prescribe any particular system of taxation. It only requires that it not be distortionary of the price signalling mechanism. Progressive, proportional, non-existent and numerous other schemes, are all consistent with laissez-faire.
  • Smith's entire Wealth of Nations was an evaluation & condemnation of distortionary market regulations as they existed in the 18th C. Britain. Smith concludes Book IV with an outline of the system he'd like to see instead. Rather than quarrel with the editor (or Mr. Gopnik), I'll quote Adam Smith himself:

"All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."

Ch.9, Of the Agricultural Systems, or of those Systems of Political Oeconomy, which Represent the Produce of Land | Bk IV, Ch. 9, para 54

That may not mean what everybody understands "unregulated markets" to mean (what does the editor mean?), but it's about as close to it as it gets. Certainly, a sufficiently decent summary of how laissez faire system is supposed to look like.

  • Finally, Adam Smith was instrumental in introduction of liberalizing reforms in the late 18th & 19th C. His arguments were appealed to constantly by proponents of laissez faire system. So even if some 21st C. commentator, by resorting to careful editing of a quote here and there out of context, believes he can prove Adam Smith "really meant" something else, it does not really make a difference to the history of laissez faire since everybody, from 1776 on down, thought Adam Smith precisely meant laissez faire. Walrasiad (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

American Whiggery

In the mid-19th century, the United States followed the Whig tradition of economic liberalism, which included increased state control, regulation and macroeconomic development of infrastructure.

Was such illiberal policy (see the link) already called 'liberalism' in those days?? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be synthesis - no page no. is given but here is a link to the source. TFD (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NPoV

[laissez-faire] describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

The word restrictive here is deliberately suggestive. This part of the article is obviously written from the perspective of a laissez-faire apologist. "Free from state intervention" implies zero regulation - not merely zero restrictive regulation. What does restrictive even mean? Ourben (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

'Free from state intervention' =/= zero regulations. Laissez faire theorists are adamant about the need for, say, State involvement in the protection of property, guarantee of contract, information requirements and transperancy rules (to prevent fraud) and even many are quite active proponents of State intervention to prevent "distraint of trade" (anti-trust regulation), cf. Henry C. Simons 1948, A Positive Program for Laissez Faire. I suppose a better word could be found for "restrictive", but essentially laissez faire theorists promote the minimum regulation necessary to guarantee free competitive exchange, but anything beyond that is considered "restrictive". As for "enforced monopolies" this is a reference to two things - old style commercial charter companies (East India Co. & all that, the bane of Adam Smith, Turgot et al.) and 20th C. government-sanctioned monopolies like nationalized companies, parastatals, public utilities, etc. Some theorists would include copyright and patent protection under this. I don't see either as apologetics, but clarifiers. Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Some laissez-faire theorists are adamant about the need for state oversight; some are anarchists. A better way to say what you mean is that advocacy of some kinds of state intervention do not disqualify the "laissez-faire" label. —Tamfang (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although I presume the wording was going for the minimum necessary to qualify for the label. Walrasiad (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdated audio

The english pronunciation audio file is outdated. There is a speech after the actual pronunciation of laissez-faire that doesn't match this article. The current audio file was added in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laissez-faire&oldid=221090198 Apparently the speech matches with the first paragraph of that article from 2008, except from the last seconds of the recording which appear to be an original summary of laissez-faire politics.146.247.222.49 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Laissez faire has never existed reference

Obviously in the context of the state, laissez faire has not existed, but that's disingenuous. The citation for that claim is also incredibly lacking since it only cites a work on American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.92.15 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 

--Agreed--

Agreed with above comment. Will change it now. 70.26.6.150 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

True, the cited work is on American history, but the claim is still valid and generally accepted. --Artoasis (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
@Lawrencekhoo, how about sources like this, this or this? It's rather easy to find more refs to support this statement. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could take it to the talk page first before removing sourced text. --Artoasis (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Yergin, Daniel., and Joseph Stanislaw. 1998. The Commanding Heights. Touchstone Book. p 21-22
  2. ^ Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press. p 38.
  3. ^ ibid, 45-50
  4. ^ ibid, 50
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laissez-faire/Archive_1&oldid=1177022199"