Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetsubo
I think he perfectly understands what it is.
Here is what it means.
There must always be some form of leadership.
Using the word dictator is done to create the feeling of something bad... but frankly your parents were dictators at one point in your life and so were your school teachers.
As an adult we still need the presence of authority in our economic structures to ensure that were are protected from our own naive proclivities. |
I'll stop you right there and quote the more relevent portion of what VonMises defines it as:
Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce.
As opposed to a "planned society":
Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion.
Laissez-Faire does NOT mean no regulation of economic practices.
It means that the government cannot, or more correctly, should not intervene in the division of Labour.
In other words, in a Laissez-Faire system the government cannot tell you what to grow, what to buy, or what products you are allowed to produce.
The consumers determine that by either buying or not buying your products, services, or goods.
Please refer to the
1st Chapter of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."
What "libertarians" like Rothbard Murry and co. have been pushing is not Laissez-Faire, it's anarchy.
In a Laissez-Faire system the government can require permits (as for doctors), safety standards, health standards, etc. provided they do not become tools used to favor one group or another or to become so restrictive as to prohibit the free excercise of a legitimate business (like Farming).
It is perfectly acceptable within a Laissez-Faire system to impose anti-monopoly laws of a draconian nature if those laws promote freedom in the market by preventing political corruption and/or dictatorial coersion by government on behalf of a powerful monopoly.
While I agree that the theory was created at a time when transportation was mostly by "water-carriage" and "land-carriage"--to use Adam Smith's terms--and thus is wholely inadequate in its 18th century form for use today; I see no reason why it cannot be modified, and upgraded for use in today's society.
That is how I know that Scott Alexander Siskind is dead wrong about Laissez-Faire.
I'm not surprised though.
I checked out his website and his blog.
It spoke volumes about what kind of person he is.
