Why would any sane person oppose laissez-faire et laissez-passer?

Question

How can any sane person seriously oppose laissez-faire? Laissez-faire is the self-evident truth that nobody should be coerced by anybody else, even if the coercer's stated motive is that they are doing it for the victim's "own good." It is the self-evident truth that nobody should be restricted from doing any action desired unless that action happens to involve interfering with the rights of another person. How can anybody be against laissez-faire et laissez-passer?

History hasn't shown that laissez-faire doesn't work. The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve, which doesn't exist under laissez-faire (see "The Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard).

Answer 1

For the same reason communism is rejected: history has shown that it doesn't work.

EX: The Continental Congress had to appoint General Washington Dictator because they had no way of feeding the troops. The list is quite long and besides, the weak Fed of the time had little impact on the Depression; speculative investments which the general population got into (often buying on the margin) caused a bubble that burst and the general public especially demanded their money from what otherwise would have been healthy banks. The Fed has PREVENTED a repeat.

Answer 2

The problem with absolute laissez-faire in the economy derives from the profit to be made from externals. Any business has things it "gets", from the surrounding economy, for no cost on the business' own balance sheet. Since economy in business means lowering costs, raising revenues, and increasing the bottom line (net profit), it is to every business' advantage to maximize the externals it benefits from. These used to include, before government regulation, the damage done to human life and health by production and distribution of subtly dangerous and harmful products, and the damage done to the environment by maximum exploitation of resources at minimum care and expense. We need regulations to keep lead paint out of toys, to keep formaldehyde out of milk, to keep melamine out of cat food, to make oil companies pick up and take away toxic well drilling muds, to prevent the catching of so many fish for sale so as to exterminate them, etc.

Laissez-passer is a little risky, too, especially where the chance of a second encounter with any individual is highly unlikely. In the game of human relations, there is only fair trade and cheating, and no incentive not to cheat if every transaction is with a stranger. Whereas the people we know, who know us, will eventually impose social sanctions on us, people we will never see again cannot. If we get them to trust us, and then cheat them, how are they ever to recover, and how are we ever to be punished?

Accordingly, in developed societies, where there are many rather than few or no strangers, we cannot trust every stranger to pass unchallenged, not attempting to at least determine if they are on legitimate or criminal purposes. If criminality both increase and evolves into subtlety, our procedures for calling the passer into account must become more sophisticated than the subterfuge of the criminal, else we be robbed, cheated, and even killed as victims to their schemes.

Coercion is indeed a reduction in liberty. Rules adopted by common consent are still constraints, but the person who finds them invasive can often go elsewhere. I agree that the rules on others "for their own good" are paternalistic, and can morally be applied only to children and juveniles. Adults are entitled to freedom, but also to be held responsible personally, because your rights end where they restrict only mine, and mine end where they restrict only yours. Our mutual agreement to restrict ourselves to make room for one another maximizes liberty and responsibility at the same time.

Answer 3

Greed

Answer 4

I think people who build buildings should be forced to build safe buildings that won't fall down because of flimsy constructon materials. I think people who sell food should only be allowed to sell food that is safe for human consumption. I know that sounds terribly oppressive, but I guess that means I support tyranny. Well, at least that's what you seem to think, I'd prefer to see it as common sense.