Talk:Laissez-faire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

SPECIFICO's edit

We seem to be editing almost simultaneously. I will pause while you complete your edit. However, I think it is commonplace in Wikipedia articles to have a section on contrasting views. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Rick, there is no dispute that contrasting views may be included in this article. However, you have improperly undone my reversion of the Keynes. Please review WP policy WP:BRD. I cited the reasons for my removal of the improperly sourced material and solicited discussion on the talk page so that valid discussion of Keynes may be decided upon for inclusion. The content you re-inserted is not properly sourced or relevant as stated. Please undo your re-insertion, per WP policy, and present your views on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some sources for editors who wish to add WP:RS discussion of Keynes' view:

• Paper by Edmund Phelps
• A recent, well-reviewed book on the subject
• Another recent book, by a Lawrence White, free market oriented academic economist.

SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: My edit, which you reverted, was to correct a spelling error. Reverting a correction of spelling is usually a bad sign. But when you came back and fixed the spelling error, that was a good sign, so I paused so that you could complete your edit.

Hejinmoon made a long and bold edit. You reverted part of it. I assume reverting my small correction just got caught up in the processs. Let's discuss the part of Hejinmoon's edit that you reverted. I visited your page, and am happy to say almost everything you post there also applies to me, except I'm a mathematician rather than an economist, and I've never tried Borscht.

I welcome the three references you provided. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, what are we discussing? Do you believe that Hejinmoon's text should be in the article? I stated the policy-based reasons for removing it. I'm glad to discuss but I do know that that particular text should be removed. Are you going to take a step back and undo your re-insertion? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You have hardly given me enough time to consider the question. I have only had time to read the first of your three references, and doubt that I can read all of the two books you cite. On the other hand, the edit you reverted, on the stated grounds that it sources are unreliable, cites three sources:

49.^ Osmond Vitez, Demand Media. "Differences Between Classical and Keynesian Economics" Chron.com. 7 Apr. 2013

50.^ Maynard Keynes. The End of Laissez faire. Hogarth Press, 1926: Print

51.^ Spencer J. Pack. Capitalism as a Moral System: Adam Smith's Critique of the Free Market Economy. Great Britain: Edward Elgar, 2010. Print

It might help for you to tell me which you consider unreliable, and why. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be working constructively, but per BRD you should not have re-inserted while we are sorting this out, nor should your re-insertion depend on my further elucidation of my edit comment, right? 49 is not RS. 50 is a primary source and to include it is the editor's OR as to relevance, context and meaning. 51 is irrelevant and WP:SYNTH Please remove the text I reverted and continue to discuss. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable taking time to think about this. I've looked into the first reference. Clearly, Demand Media is not a reliable source. I've removed it, and the statements attributed to it. The use of such a source casts doubt on all of Hejinmoon's edit. I'll continue to check. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Rick, once again, there's a simple principle to follow here: After another editor has reverted material for cause, you should not have reinserted it while you continue to check it. Please remove that last paragraph, which is not on the same subject as the preceding quote and is WP:SYNTH and irrelevant to this article. There would be nothing preventing its reinsertion if discussion leads to a consensus against my removal. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The principle is not quite as simple as you suggest. It depends on whether your given cause for reverting is correct. I'm checking that. (As a contrasting case, consider blanking without a valid cause. Clearly the blanked material can be restored without discussion.)

Turning to the Keynes reference, it is used earlier in the article, and is clearly not a problem there, since in that case Keynes is reporting on a fact within his area of expertise. In that case he is a secondary source. The question, then, is whether the second reference is also factual. I'll look into it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You misstate WP policy and you have assumed ownership of this article, also contrary to WP norms. I encourage you to review BRD and use the talk page. The fact that something has been reverted does not prejudice whether it's ultimately included, but your little edit war obstructs process and may discourage other editors from joining any discussion while you exercise the prerogative you have inappropriately taken for yourself. Very disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly an "edit war" and I doubt very much that other Wikipedia editors are so easily discouraged. I will continue to edit the article as seems best to me, and am sure you will do the same.

The heading of the section we are discussing is not really at all descriptive of its content, so I've changed that. I have also rearranged the paragraphs in chronological order, added an introductory sentence, and removing an editorial aside by the author of the paragraph in question. I think we also need a concluding paragraph, but that will require some research. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted SPECIFICO's recent deletion because the grounds he gave were incorrect. Keynes is a primary source on Keynesianism. But he is a secondary source on other aspects of economics, and he is an acknowledged expert in the field. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're edit-warring, Rick. Please review WP:BRD WP:EW WP:PRIMARY WP:SYNTH WP:QUOTE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Even if I were incorrect, WP policy clearly provides for discussion on the talk page. Your repeated assertion that you are "right" and I am "wrong" is a clear violation of WP:BRD. Please revert your re-insertion of this material and pursue your viewpoint on talk after having studied the policies I have cited. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that you would understand my point, after it was called to your attention. Maybe an analogy will help. In the article on Reletivity, Einstein would be a primary source. But in the article on Isaac Newton, Einstein would be a secondary source. I think it is probably best to wait for a third party to weigh in. Meanwhile, since you object to quoting Keynes, I'm sure that there are many other economists who have said the same thing. I'll try to find one, and replace the Keynes's quote with a quote from another source. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I already provided three sources for you. Do as you wish but the Keynes quote is 1. Primary and 2. Off-topic and 3. Descriptive, not critical. Per WP:BRD Please remove it while discussion and improvement take place. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. If someone does original research, is everything they write, even if it not part of their original research, forever considered primary? If someone writes about the topic that is the title of an article, how is that writing off-topic? If someone writes a description that is a critique of the topic of the article, how is that not a critique?

I appreciate the references you provided, but the first one is strongly pro-laissez-faire, and this section is about contrasting views. You said "there is no dispute that contrasting views may be included in this article". As for the others, they look interesting, but I have not had time to read two books in two days. When I finish the book I'm reading now, "Capitalism" by James Fulcher, I'll turn to them next. The second of the three I've already recommended to my library book club. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings everyone. I was first made aware of this discussion via this post. I hope this meets WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, and that the other three wikiprojects, and one task force were notified of this discussion. That being said, I have looked at the section Laissez-faire#Critiques and I understand that sources need not be available on the internet to be used, however it would be helpful if they were, especially considering the politically sensitive nature that this article may have. I can understand the critiques of the subject by Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, but not so much Friedrich Hayek. Is Hayek a significant and notable economist that his views are significant? Also, we should review which approach is best as outlined in WP:CRIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello RightCow. Yes, similar notices were placed on the other WikiProject pages. Hayek, a Nobel laureate in economics, is considered one of the preeminent economists and social philosophers of the twentieth century and one of the most notable advocates of free-market institutions and policies. As you can see, the full text of the citation is available on the web. Thanks for your comment. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening statement, scholars believe.

The opening paragraph is very weak. Scholars believe is not true, there has never, and will never be, a business transaction where laissez-faire is applicable, all business transactions themselves, having internal & external stipulations, contractual, by word of mouth, or understood in social context. Therefore it is not scholars believe, but just straight forward:

There has never been an instance of economic laissez-faire, all transactions allways having internal & external stipulations, some contractual, some through word, some understood or misunderstood in social context, whose breakage or within dispute, is allways resolved through a form of higher hierarchy, even if that hierarchy is solely warfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand your comment, you would like to replace the sentence with "A laissez-faire state or a completely free market has never existed." I have no objection, since "scholars believe" is a weasel phrase. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Due to the well-known consensus and therefore the number of sources reinforcing the fact that laissez-faire has never existed (including the ones Artoasis listed above: Source #1, Source #2, and Source #3), I propose reinserting it into the intro paragraph with the listed sources -- but under different wording, given that that seems to be the prime issue here. Adam9389 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Toufick Gaspard

"Laissez-faire was viewed as a moral program, and the market its instrument to ensure men the rights of natural law."

I have not read the book by Toufick Gaspard cited both as a reference for the statement, in the passive voice, that laissez-faire "was viewed as a moral program" and for the definition of laissez-faire. Is it a best source for the definition? And "was viewed as a moral program" begs the question, by whom? If by Adam Smith, then the article should say so. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rick, you're correct in your concern. The cited work does attribute that view to Smith and I have corrected the wording of the article to reflect this. See [1].

This is so wrong, it's not even funny. The adoption of laissez-faire as a moral program is what distinguishes French "liberals" (if you want to call them that) from English liberals. That moral program starts with Bastiat. Here's what Hayek had to say:

"This development of a theory of liberty took place mainly in the eighteenth century. It began in two countries, England and France. The first of these knew liberty; the second did not. As a result, we have had to the present day two different traditions in the theory of liberty: one empirical and unsystematic, the other speculative and rationalistic –the first based on an interpretation of traditions and institutions which had spontaneously grown up and were but imperfectly understood, the second aiming at the construction of a utopia, which has often been tried but never successfully. (...) This distinction is obscured by the fact that what we have called the “French tradition” of liberty arose largely from an attempt to interpret British institutions and that the conceptions which other countries formed of British institutions were based mainly on their descriptions by French writers. (...) What we have called the “British Tradition” was made explicit mainly by a group of Scottish moral philosophers led by David Hume, Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson, seconded by their English contemporaries Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley, and drawing largely on a tradition rooted in the jurisprudent of the common law. Opposed to them was the tradition of the French Enlightenment, deeply imbued with Cartesian rationalism: the Encyclopedists and Rousseau, the Physiocrats and Condorcet, are their best know representatives. (...) Though these two groups are now commonly lumped together as ancestors of modern liberalism, there is hardly a greater contrast imaginable than that between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning of a social order and the role played in it by liberty. The difference is directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France. (...) Not Locke, nor Hume, nor Smith, nor Burke, could have argued, as Bentham did, that “every law is an evil for every law is an infraction of liberty.” Their argument was never a complete laissez faire argument, which, as the very words show, is also part of the French rationalist tradition and in its literal sense was never defended by any of the English classical economists. They knew better than most of their later critics that it was not some sort of magic, but the evolution of “well constructed institutions,” where the “rules and privileges of contending interests and compromised advantages” would be reconciled, that had successfully channeled individual efforts to socially beneficial aims. In fact, their argument was never antistate as such, or anarchistic, which is the logical outcome of the rationalistic laissez faire doctrine; it was an argument that accounted both for the proper functions of the state and for the limits of state action." (F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Ch IV, Sec 4, 1960)[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre.levy.al (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Corporations

There's this:

Being a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[17] Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.[24]

However, this quote clearly is about corporations as guilds or entities associated with government privileges, not about modern corporations. Shouldn't this be removed?

DracoDruida (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Fundamentals of laissez-faire

This section has only one reference, "The Political Economy of Lebanon". This does not seem sufficient for sweeping statements about fundamentals. I suggest the section be deleted or, if kept, then additional references be added. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The link, 26, is also an 404. The axioms needs to be formalized in some book in something more persistent than a web page? Hholst80 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Most web pages have a persistent alternative. www.archive.org. Anastrophe (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why the heavy use of italics for Laissez-faire?

Not only is the article name in italics, but it's used more or less constantly through-out the entire article. BP OMowe (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same. Why does this term need to be displayed in italics? Anyone? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm answering the question literally: because foreign language words that have not been fully adopted into English get italics. Laissez faire might be a common term of art in economics, but the average person (the average reader of wikipedia) is not familiar with it and would be interested in hearing a translation of it. I'm not saying I know this definitively, I'm saying that is where the the debate about italics lies, and people being mystified as to why it has italics seem not to know the rule; if they do know the rule and they seek to change the status of laissez faire, these are the terms of the debate. As perhaps a useful example, there is still a debate about whether et al should be italicized, and it's much more common in English 98.7.201.234 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

this article is deficient on English usage of the term

I came to this article to find exactly what I found, the early history and original meaning of the term laissez faire, so that's great. However, I don't think the current common usage of the term is the same; most people use laissez faire with the negative connotations of "the excesses of too much capitalism, i.e. markets cannot be left alone, markets need regulation" (it's ok if you disagree with my perception, just want to say I have a graduate degree in a subfield of economics, so I don't need the nuances of perfect market capitalism, free market capitalism, market clearing prices and externalities explained to me in order to clarify the point I'm making. I'm just talking about newpaper usage.) 98.7.201.234 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Meaning unclear

"The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French piece..." - Is that supposed to be "phrase" instead of "piece" - it is not clear what the meaning of "piece" is here? 148.177.1.211 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I made the change. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel, a correction is due: The phrase "laissez-faire" does not translate as "let go". The verb "go" in French is "aller" not "faire". It literally means "[you, plural] let us do [as we please, implied]". Submitted by XwpisONOMA (at) gMail (dot) com.

Yes, the meaning of "laisser faire" in this context denotes non-interference. The closest English expression is not to let go, but to let be. I am changing the sentence to read: "The expression 'laissez-faire' comes from the French. It denotes non-interference and may loosely be translated as 'let be'." The footnote leading to a French-English dictionary also seems to me superfluous. al-Howayek (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I always heard "leave it alone" as the closest translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.59.124 (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

William Petty

Why is there no mention of William Petty in this discussion? Petty is attributed to the creation of Laissez-faire policy is he not? 2001:1970:48C0:F00:CDA2:E4B7:FBC7:8C5 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

attributed by whom? Petty's work was mercantalist, advocating for price controls on corn and frankly monstrous, calling for ethnic cleansing of the scottish and irish. He's a proto keynesian really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.59.124 (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation

The fact that the mention of Adam Smith in the beginning comes directly after "proponents of laissez-faire argue for a complete separation of government from the economic sector," makes it seem like Adam Smith opposed any and all economic regulation, which is definitely incorrect. The article needs to clarify Adam Smith's views. 73.254.192.168 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

this article isn't about Smith or his views, it is about the economic philosophy of laissez-faire. smith's views can be expounded on in the section on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.191.70.2 (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

suggested edits

"As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the axioms[1] that the individual is the basic unit in society and has a natural right to freedom; that the physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system; and that corporations are creatures of the state and therefore the citizens must watch them closely due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.[2]"

This is completely inaccurate. Laissez-faire is an economic doctrine which advocates for minimal or no state intervention in the economy. It is not methodological individualism, or even classical liberalism / libertarianism (natural right to freedom), although one could certainly describe laissez-faire as the economic doctrine of classical liberalism. None of what I have quoted has anything to do with economic affairs or the role of the state in the economy what-so-ever and is inappropriate in the context of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.59.124 (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Update, new version looks good to me, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.59.124 (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"and that corporations are creatures of the state and therefore the citizens must watch them closely due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.[2][3]"

This is unsubstantiated by the citation. The citation is talking about grants of monopoly privilege, and how this enables them to charge higher prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meistro1 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Single POV

If Ted Cruz wrote the article on the US Democrat party, it is unlikely it would be as badly skewed as this load of rubbish. If the central message of an article on Laissez f’n faire is that more government is good, you’re doing something wrong. (PS it clearly is and you’re doing something wrong.). Queue gaslighting from someone whose entire contribution history is to leftist mainstays.101.187.148.9 (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain how the article's central message is "more government is good"? I would like for you to explain it more clearly DontTakeMyIPLol (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Portion of abstract contrary to definition.

“While associated with capitalism in common usage, there are also non-capitalist forms of laissez-faire, including some forms of market socialism.”

This is wholly inconsistent with the initially provided definition, any claim this contrary would require significant reference to substantiate its inclusion. While a phrase may syntactically or semantically be associated with a dichotomous concept it should not be in its abstract - at most a related article or a subsection of other uses. Factsbeforefeelings (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

what about james mill

I am appalled at the discredit done to the great james mill by the failure to be include him in this article beyond a single mention. Meistro1 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Statue of Adam Smith at Edinburgh.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Adam smith and Laissez faire.

Smith did not advocate for Laissez-faire as has been noted by scholars for some time, Smith recognised the need for government intervention in 'commercial society'. For Smith a capitalist society could not function without Governmental intervention and state support. 78.144.120.127 (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

since my edits have been reverted I would like to discuss them here so we can reach consensus please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meistro1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"Another basic principle of laissez-faire holds that markets should naturally be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire always emphasized."

what does this mean "should be"? it seems to me that principle of laissez-faire is that markets are naturally competitive, and the statement should be implies something else (is a pre-amble to advocate intervention). Why the phrasing "should be" instead of "are"?

"With the aims of maximizing freedom by allowing markets to self-regulate, early advocates of laissez-faire proposed a impôt unique, a tax on land rent (similar to Georgism) to replace all taxes that they saw as damaging welfare by penalizing production."

This section should be deleted. It is too irrelevant to the topic of laissez-faire. The top section should just be about laissez-faire. Meistro1 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I take it that your reverted edits were deletions of these sentences?

I disagree that the second is irrelevant. A Georgist tax enables the state to collect revenue with a minimum of interference in productive activity; it thus advances laisser-faire goals. (Now putting my anarchist hat back on) —Tamfang (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

whatever your personal feelings on a georgian tax are, it is irrelevant to the section 2001:4451:1AA:7500:4771:5965:53D5:DC1B (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

What if this ‘feeling’ were sourced to a more prominent advocate of l-f and Georgism? —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)