Why would laissez-faire NOT work?

[Falcon63]

Well, I am a proponent of a laissez-faire system. I think it could work, and I think it is the only truly "free" system. I know WHY it works, but I want to know why it WOULDN'T work?

People say it would make monopolies run rampant. But, people are not forced to consume certain products. If people don't want to buy from a certain company, they don't have to. If Wal-mart starts selling contaminated food, people can simply stop buying from there and Wal-Mart will go out of business. A truly free market encourages competition, which drives quality up and prices down.

People also say that we need things like the FDA to keep us safe, but, again, no one is forcing people to buy certain drugs. Also, there are private agencies, such as Underwriters Lab and Consumer Report that do testing and make sure products are safe, yet aren't funded by the government. If people wanted to consume only products they knew were safe, it would be their choice to consume products that were tested by these companies (and other reputable ones). It is your decision to make the wrong choice, if that is what you please. Also, the FDA's standards not only are extremely expensive (which drive up prices due to companies trying to recompensate what they lost), but they are ineffective, as many good drugs are banned and many bad drugs are passed. Also, the prices of testing would further decrease as free markets always increase quality and decrease prices due to competition.

People say that pollution would run rampant. I read a Rothbard article yesterday that introduced the idea of privatizing oceans and rivers. Now that I think about it more, while we COULD find ways for it to work, we'd have to veer away from a truly laissez-faire market, it'd just be more agencies, regulations, and documents for the government to worry about (which would cost too much money to accomplish very little), and it'd just be too much of a hassle.

The main reason I was contemplating that idea was because it would discourage pollution due to property rights violations and lawsuits from property owners. However, I think the same could be accomplished by making sure that, nationwide, a person's body is CLEARLY defined as property. Some property right legislation is VERY ambiguous, and I think, if we could CLEARLY state that a person's body was their property, it would accomplish the same thing. For example, if a company decided to dump toxic waste into the water, residents could file class-action lawsuits against that company, as that waste would certainly enter their drinking water and harm their body (therefore violating their property rights). You already CAN file suits against these companies, but, if I'm not mistaken, it can't be a CLASS-ACTION lawsuit. The company would get a slap on the wrist in the current system. Simply by outright defining one's body as your property and legalizing class-action lawsuits against these companies, the companies would be subject to harsher penalties, such as cease and desist orders and/or possible jail time, thus, they would be discouraged from polluting.

Is there anything else? Are there any flaws in my arguments? Since there has never been a TRULY free market, we'd need to cover EVERY aspect and address EVERY flaw.

[acptulsa]

We had a very free market in the nineteenth century. And I don't think we're going to cover every contingency in your little thread here, no matter how often you change fonts. We've been covering this for years now. You're a little behind.

For instance, you can't sue people for polluting unless they aren't in EPA compliance when they're polluting the hell out of you.

Nice to see you all fired up. Welcome. Stick around; we'll get you filled in on all the details.

[Falcon63]

Well, considering I want to get rid of the EPA, obviously that would have to change. Pollution is a violation of our property rights and citizens should be able to file class-action lawsuits against those that violate these rights.

[HigherVision]

There's no such thing as any system of human governance 'working' 100% perfectly because it's not a perfect world. So the anti-market people will never run out of things to complain about. But monopolies are always worse for society than non-monopolies so whatever problems there are in a free market, with government it's worse.

[Christian Liberty]

We had a very free market in the nineteenth century. And I don't think we're going to cover every contingency in your little thread here, no matter how often you change fonts. We've been covering this for years now. You're a little behind.

I had a friend (Liberal, although a bit skeptical of government, more of a "Unions" type of leftist than a "Big government" leftist if that makes sense) ask me about the industrial revolution today actually. Admittedly I don't know the period well enough. Obviously we all know what everyone thinks the problems were in the industrial revolution, people worked long hours and for little pay and there were tons of monopolies... we know that this is currently not the case. Even still, I suspect that it was not government that "Fixed" this problem. What exactly happened to get from there to now?

[No Free Beer]

We had a very free market in the nineteenth century. And I don't think we're going to cover every contingency in your little thread here, no matter how often you change fonts. We've been covering this for years now. You're a little behind.

For instance, you can't sue people for polluting unless they aren't in EPA compliance when they're polluting the hell out of you.

Nice to see you all fired up. Welcome. Stick around; we'll get you filled in on all the details.

Although the EPA has gotten out of hand, they have done some good as well.

[NoOneButPaul]

Our system gives rise to cartels that take over the system and control it.

That's the biggest flaw...

How do you stop the ultimate producers in a free market system from destroying the free market system and eventually gaming it to their advantage?

[TheGrinch]

If we thought the government could effectively legislate the solution, we'd advocate it, but a truly free market solves most problems.

That said, I'm not one of the anarchists here, I believe there is a fair system like you suggest, but everyday I have more doubts that it will happen through corrupt governance.

I believe that a truly free market still has protections, it's just the logistics that are the tough part...

[Christian Liberty]

If we thought the government could effectively legislate the solution, we'd advocate it.

Pure effectiveness isn't the only factor.

That said, I'm not one of the anarchists here, I believe there is a fair system like you suggest, but everyday I have more doubts that it will happen through corrupt governance.

I don't think a libertarian system will actually happen, nor have I ever thought that it would, but every time I see another corrupt action by our government I move closer and closer to being an anarchist. Although then private companies would just do the same thing "The state" is doing now and it wouldn't truly matter.

[TheGrinch]

Pure effectiveness isn't the only factor.


I don't think a libertarian system will actually happen, nor have I ever thought that it would, but every time I see another corrupt action by our government I move closer and closer to being an anarchist. Although then private companies would just do the same thing "The state" is doing now and it wouldn't truly matter.

That is my biggest worry with anarcho-capitalism, the game is already rigged, no matter the system. As Dr. Paul says, you have to change the morality, not the laws, or it really doesn't matter that much (ETA: well, I take that back, it still matters, but only so much)

(BTW, I tried to edit both posts, but may be too buzzed to clarify well)

[Christian Liberty]

Dr. Paul is absolutely right. There's no real way to "Fix" the system. All I can say is that an out of control government like ours has no legitimacy, just pure, naked force. There is nothing intrinsically moral about democracy, we accept it solely because we fear the alternatives may be worse. If I could wave a magic wand to make Ron Paul dictator I would do it in a heartbeat without regard for the morality of "Not allowing people to choose their government." There is no intrinisic right to choose my ruler...

[TheGrinch]

Dr. Paul is absolutely right. There's no real way to "Fix" the system. All I can say is that an out of control government like ours has no legitimacy, just pure, naked force. There is nothing intrinsically moral about democracy, we accept it solely because we fear the alternatives may be worse. If I could wave a magic wand to make Ron Paul dictator I would do it in a heartbeat without regard for the morality of "Not allowing people to choose their government." There is no intrinisic right to choose my ruler...

There's almost no debate that benevolent wise dictator would be the best form of governance. Unfortunately, that is pretty much not allowed in our world.

[Christian Liberty]

There is a ton of disagreement on what "Benevolent and Wise" would be like, however. I know people that would include the guy in your avatar in that group

Which is why it pragmatically doesn't work, and Mises style ultra-decentralized democracy makes more sense. That's purely pragmatic though, and democracy is not inherently good.

[No Free Beer]

That is my biggest worry with anarcho-capitalism, the game is already rigged, no matter the system. As Dr. Paul says, you have to change the morality, not the laws, or it really doesn't matter that much (ETA: well, I take that back, it still matters, but only so much)

(BTW, I tried to edit both posts, but may be too buzzed to clarify well)

What morality?

Can you point to one?

I hate the be the bearer of bad news, but wasn't it Jefferson who proposed we get rid of slavery when writing a draft of the DOI, yet after, continued to own slaves? And unlike Washington, he kept them under his name after his death?

I love Jefferson, but he was a hypocrite just like other politicians (see Louisiana Purchase)

So, again....what morality do you speak of?

[NoOneButPaul]

If we thought the government could effectively legislate the solution, we'd advocate it, but a truly free market solves most problems.

That said, I'm not one of the anarchists here, I believe there is a fair system like you suggest, but everyday I have more doubts that it will happen through corrupt governance.

I believe that a truly free market still has protections, it's just the logistics that are the tough part...

I also think allowing each state to run their own economies would allow us to test a variety of different systems and devise even better ones in the long run.

[TheGrinch]

I also think allowing each state to run their own economies would allow us to test a variety of different systems and devise even better ones in the long run.

+rep, this is what I believe, keep it as local as possible, demand more from your politicians and hold them accountable.

[TheGrinch]

What morality?

Can you point to one?

I hate the be the bearer of bad news, but wasn't it Jefferson who proposed we get rid of slavery when writing a draft of the DOI, yet after, continued to own slaves? And unlike Washington, he kept them under his name after his death?

I love Jefferson, but he was a hypocrite just like other politicians (see Louisiana Purchase)

So, again....what morality do you speak of?

Yes morality is subjective, but in this sense I was quoting Dr Paul to make a point that you cannot have anarcho-capitalism in a rigged system without changing the "morality" that supports this system.

I do not care to have a philosophical debate, so please lay off the gotchas and read what I'm saying.

[spladle]

There's a pretty large literature out there dealing with the phenomenon of market failure; read up on it, and you should get a pretty good handle on the primary legitimate objections to laissez-faire. The classic problems have to do with asymmetric information, natural monopolies, externalities (both positive and negative), and public goods. More recently, behavioral economics has begun attacking laissez-faire on the grounds that human irrationality produces market failures of a sort.

For a long time, the standard answer economists gave upon discovering a market failure was, "Government can fix it!" Public choice economists threw a monkey wrench in the works by studying and highlighting the existence of "government failures" that were often (though not always) worse than the market failures they sought to correct. Still, I think it's fair to say that the majority of people whom I'd certify as "experts" simultaneously believe that:

(a) there is a larger role for the state to play in regulating industrialized economies than the median libertarian/member of RPF believes there to be, and
(b) the proper role for the state in economic affairs is smaller than what the median voter believes it to be.

In other words, the right answer probably lies somewhere between what we have and what libertarians/RPF members would like to see. Therefore, on net, I see the effect that radical libertarians have on the political process as positive, even when they go "too far," because the likelihood of radical libertarian policies being adopted is virtually zero, while the danger of even more statism coming about is very high, and I agree with RPF members on the direction that we ought to go, even if I don't always agree on the destination. So, for example, while I might object to abolishing the EPA/FDA outright, it's almost certainly the case that they currently operate in an economically inefficient way, and we'd all be better off if their power were constrained.

Hope this helps!

[heavenlyboy34]

I hate the be the bearer of bad news, but wasn't it Jefferson who proposed we get rid of slavery when writing a draft of the DOI, yet after, continued to own slaves? And unlike Washington, he kept them under his name after his death?

I love Jefferson, but he was a hypocrite just like other politicians (see Louisiana Purchase)

No, he didn't quite keep his slaves (and he was in fact a terrible person, but all the other presidents sucked too...see http://whyeverypresidentsucked.com/):
http://www.monticello.org/site/plant...on-and-slavery
Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.
At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.
Although Jefferson continued to advocate for abolition, the reality was that slavery was only becoming more entrenched. The slave population in Virginia skyrocketed from 292,627 in 1790 to 469,757 in 1830. Jefferson had assumed that the abolition of the slave trade would weaken slavery and hasten its end. Instead, slavery only became more widespread and profitable. To try to erode Virginians’ support for slavery, he discouraged the cultivation of crops heavily dependent on slave labor—tobacco—and encouraged the introduction of crops that needed little or no slave labor—wheat, sugar maples, short-grained rice, olive trees, and wine grapes. But by the 1800s, Virginia’s most valuable commodity and export was neither crops nor land, but slaves.
Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment. Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition. Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States. The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.
Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential consequence of emancipation.
Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery. To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union. Jefferson’s latter prediction was correct: in 1861, the contest over slavery sparked a bloody civil war and the creation of two nations—Union and Confederacy—in the place of one.
FURTHER SOURCES

• Bear, James, A. Jr. Jefferson at Monticello. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1967.
• Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book. Manuscript and transcription available online courtesy the Massachusetts Historical Society.
• Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia. Edited by William Peden. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. Chapters "Laws" and "Manners."
• Finkelman, Paul. "Jefferson and Slavery: Treason Against the Hopes of the World." In Jeffersonian Legacies, ed. Peter S. Onuf. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993), 181-221.
• French, Scot A. and Edward L. Ayers. "The Strange Career of Thomas Jefferson: Race and Slavery in American Memory, 1943-1993." In Jeffersonian Legacies, ed. Peter S. Onuf. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993), 418-456.
• Gordon-Reed, Annette. The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008.
• Jordan, Winthrop D. White over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968, 461-481.
• Miller, John Chester. The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. Charlottesville: University Press of Virgina, 1991.
• Onuf, Peter S. "Every Generation is an Independent Nation: Colonization, Miscegenation, and the Fate of Jefferson's Children." In The Mind of Thomas Jefferson (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2007), 213-235.
• Stanton, Lucia. Slavery at Monticello. Charlottesville: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, 1996.
• Stanton, Lucia. "Those Who Labor for my Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press, 2012.
• See selected sources on Jefferson's views on slavery in theJefferson Portal.
• See selected sources on Jefferson as slave owner in the Jefferson Portal.
• View information about individuals and life within the enslaved community in the Plantation Database

[spladle]

I had a friend (Liberal, although a bit skeptical of government, more of a "Unions" type of leftist than a "Big government" leftist if that makes sense) ask me about the industrial revolution today actually. Admittedly I don't know the period well enough. Obviously we all know what everyone thinks the problems were in the industrial revolution, people worked long hours and for little pay and there were tons of monopolies... we know that this is currently not the case. Even still, I suspect that it was not government that "Fixed" this problem. What exactly happened to get from there to now?

Economic growth happened. Have your friend read this: http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conser.../dp/0029166500

[spladle]

Our system gives rise to cartels that take over the system and control it.

That's the biggest flaw...

How do you stop the ultimate producers in a free market system from destroying the free market system and eventually gaming it to their advantage?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[The Gold Standard]

I had a friend (Liberal, although a bit skeptical of government, more of a "Unions" type of leftist than a "Big government" leftist if that makes sense) ask me about the industrial revolution today actually. Admittedly I don't know the period well enough. Obviously we all know what everyone thinks the problems were in the industrial revolution, people worked long hours and for little pay and there were tons of monopolies... we know that this is currently not the case. Even still, I suspect that it was not government that "Fixed" this problem. What exactly happened to get from there to now?

First of all, what the state spoored history books teach about the evil monopolies is pretty much nonsense. Monopolies can charge higher prices because there is no competition. Carnegie's "monopoly" in steel reduced the price of steel by some 90%. Same with Standard Oil. Obviously the threat of potential competition was enough to regulate monopoly pricing.

Second of all, people worked long hours because of the lack of capital goods. How long does it take to build a car today? Now how long would it take if you remove all computers, electricity, power tools, assembly lines, factories, etc? If people only worked 8 hours a day, it would have taken forever to make anything, and the resulting lack of products makes society poorer. People worked long hours so there would be something to buy with their paychecks. The advances that came from the industrial revolution allowed people to produce more and work less, the resulting abundance of consumer products making everyone wealthier.

Also, there are many more monopolies and oligopolies today than existed in the late 19th century, and you can guess who caused that mess (not the free market). The government did nothing to solve any of these problems, but it sure did create a lot of new problems.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've found that in discussions like this there's a lot of confusing of is/ought. You're most likely not going to find all the answers you seek here. Fortunately, there is a ginormous body of literature you can read on the subjects of laissez-faire economics, history, praxaeology, etc, etc at mises.org and similar sites. When you soak up all the objective facts and competing perspectives, you'll get a much clearer understanding of laissez-faire works.

[Barrex]

That is my biggest worry with anarcho-capitalism, the game is already rigged, no matter the system. As Dr. Paul says, you have to change the morality, not the laws, or it really doesn't matter that much (ETA: well, I take that back, it still matters, but only so much)

(BTW, I tried to edit both posts, but may be too buzzed to clarify well)

My too. I also think that only thing stops people from shooting government officials when they step out their boundaries is appearance of legitimacy. I think that they wouldnt have that "respect" with private companies...Those western movies where one bad big farmer guy is owning and harassing entire town are just movies. Truth is that people dealt with that kind very effectively throughout history. Only when they have shield of government legality masses see them as untouchable.



I, like all people are, am afraid (little) of new and unknown but with each new day I am getting more and more disgusted with current old and known system and I am more and more wishing for that new and unknown to happen... with all its risks and flaws... When enough people start feeling this way old will die (by force or natural death) and will be replaced by new.

[No Free Beer]

Yes morality is subjective, but in this sense I was quoting Dr Paul to make a point that you cannot have anarcho-capitalism in a rigged system without changing the "morality" that supports this system.

I do not care to have a philosophical debate, so please lay off the gotchas and read what I'm saying.

Although I agree with the idea that morality needs to change before law can be effective, Ron Paul is wrong on this because he acts as if there was a time in American history when morality ruled the land.

[cheapseats]

...Ron Paul...acts as if there was a time in American history when morality ruled the land.

Worse, he proselytizes as though there are no culpable individuals "underpinning" the Federal Reserve and the Foreign Policy against which he rails. He derides Government in the third-person, as tho he is not for many years PART of Government.

To hear non-confrontational Ron Paul tell it, there are NO BAD GUYS to punish unto imprison, just icky agencies and faulty policies.

[Christian Liberty]

First of all, what the state spoored history books teach about the evil monopolies is pretty much nonsense. Monopolies can charge higher prices because there is no competition. Carnegie's "monopoly" in steel reduced the price of steel by some 90%. Same with Standard Oil. Obviously the threat of potential competition was enough to regulate monopoly pricing.

Second of all, people worked long hours because of the lack of capital goods. How long does it take to build a car today? Now how long would it take if you remove all computers, electricity, power tools, assembly lines, factories, etc? If people only worked 8 hours a day, it would have taken forever to make anything, and the resulting lack of products makes society poorer. People worked long hours so there would be something to buy with their paychecks. The advances that came from the industrial revolution allowed people to produce more and work less, the resulting abundance of consumer products making everyone wealthier.

Also, there are many more monopolies and oligopolies today than existed in the late 19th century, and you can guess who caused that mess (not the free market). The government did nothing to solve any of these problems, but it sure did create a lot of new problems.

This sounds like its probably accurate. Thanks!

I've found that in discussions like this there's a lot of confusing of is/ought. You're most likely not going to find all the answers you seek here. Fortunately, there is a ginormous body of literature you can read on the subjects of laissez-faire economics, history, praxaeology, etc, etc at mises.org and similar sites. When you soak up all the objective facts and competing perspectives, you'll get a much clearer understanding of laissez-faire works.

Will do, thanks.