If laissez faire works, then why not (lack of government) anarchy?

Question

I've been getting alot of replies to the effect that laissez faire works, in that "people" will determine their own destiny, in effect without an authority (democratic or not) guiding morality...I would like to challenge those who are in favor of laissez faire why economic freedom from authority is ok, but personal freedom from authority (lack of government) is not ok...for instance, if a corporation wants to pollute the water, according to laissez faire, the government shouldn't interfere (because the people will vote them out with their dollars rather than the authority figure) but if a regular person is polluting the water it is not ok (the person should be sent to jail by an authority figure)...How can a person justify businesses being free from authority yet people should not be free from an authority figure? It seems like the same rules for corporations should apply to regular people...and if that is true laissez faire would mean (lack of government) anarchy...wouldn't it?

In response to "MBK", a society in which economics is left to itself without an authority figure of one kind or another can not have authority to say "people can do anything so long as it doesn't infringe others' freedom"...only a system that has an authority figure that on some level is involved in managing economics can do that...You are endorsing little government interference, not no government interference. I wrote this with a purpose, and that is to prove that no government interference in economics would be akin to (lack of government) anarchy. So far, nobody has put up a valid argument against that. Democracy has worked well in government and I do not see why it can not work in economics. If people vote for no smoke in bars, they should be able to make that happen whether it upsets you or not. The will of the people to avoid lung cancer should be upheld over your personal desire to make money in a bar.

Answer 1

our act of human nature wont allow that.If you want a place to be safe you must have authorities to make the rules and regulation works.just imagine if we all are set loose from law, what would it be like....

Answer 2

Clever question.

Multicultural society with liberal democracy is an approximation to a truly laissez-faire polity. It is a system in which diversity of preferences is accepted and people can do anything so long as it doesn't infringe others' freedom. I can't rape you because that denies your freedom, but I can take you out to dinner with your consent and suggest we make love afterwards, even if you're married, if that's OK in your and my morality, and at the same time my Indian neighbour can choose never to do that because it's contrary to his morality. That's liberalism in politics.

I don't live in a liberal society. I live in one where, for example, governments tell me I am soon not going to be allowed to open a bar in which smoking is permitted indoors, because they happen to think it is bad for my customers' and employees' health. Never mind that the customers and employees have both freely chosen to enter a smoky environment, and that they could go to the smoke-free bar down the road. That's the "nanny state" for you.

Your example of water pollution touches on what economists call "public goods and services" ~ things that by their nature are supplied collectively. If you and I are on opposite banks of a river, we share the same water source. You can't pollute your water without also polluting mine. So there has to be some means of agreeing about what is acceptable for us to do, whether "you" and "I" are peasants or oil companies. And when there's zillions of us instead of just two there seems to be only one way - regulation.

Answer 3

A good point. True laissez-faire means "leave us alone" with no restrictions on the 'us' part. In practice, this has never existed - businesses in the robber-baron period insisted on being left alone, but when workers sabotaged their plants, the owners were quick to call in the troops.

Ultimately, laissez-faire fails because of externalities; so many bucks get passed that the system collapses under the weight of excesses, as the market does not incorporate these externalities. THe irony, then, is that under laissez-faire capitalism, the market cannot possibly work. But laissez-faire was conceived before it was generally accepted that markets begin with imperfect information (to pull your example, let us dump this MDMH sludge in the river, and worry about who pays for the tumors later on).

True laissez-faire would mean anarchy.

The optimism under the founders of such an idea (and their predecessors, philosophers such as Rousseau and Locke and economists such as Jeremiah Bentley) was that there existed a social contract or some such obligation that bound one person to the welfare of another. This is the basis of capitalism according to Adam Smith, that production does not occur unless some benefit can be gained - why? so that benefit can be taken advantage of (of course, this is called profit; and if I derive benefit from a pack of chewing gum, why shouldn't you take advantage of that benefit and charge me 50 cents for it?)

Answer 4

A free market is a fleece market. In reality, it means that whoever gets control of a market by hook or crook is free to do whatever he wants.

Laissez faire works for whoever gets enough money to brainwash people into believing in this fantasy. Anyone the upper-class pays to write, speak, or teach this nonsense and make it sound plausible is of the same ilk as those who get paid to have sex.

Where is the employees' freedom from authority? Private power is just another form of government. Just as Communism is state capitalism, Capitalism is communism for the rich.

Answer 5

The mass majority needs someone to lead them. This is why anarchy does not work. A person is smart but a large mob is not as likely to think things through.
Businesses pour money into the government as special interest groups in order to protect their agendas. Normal people do not have the monetary weight that the business sect does.

Answer 6

cuz members of gov are in these businesss themselves and they need to make money. Also beacuse when noone is regulating business you can have another great deprssion. The government isdoing a good job regulating it, otherwise the world since the 30s would have seen mayn depressions. Laissez Faire is onyl to a certain extent acceptable

Answer 7

all the thesis relies upon on the authorities created fable of height oil. I have a shopper who's a astounding geologist and may practice that there is sufficient coal in Montana to gasoline this united states for 500 years at cutting-edge degrees and the technologies to attain this already exists. also he can practice that there is more desirable oil in Prudhoe Bay than in Saudi Arabia and Iran mixed. height oil is a device to develop oil expenditures, administration guy and scare the crap out of people like you.

Answer 8

You're giving too much
importance to laissez faire,
but most ingenious!

Answer 9

ok