Saw this quote in the political picture thread and thought it would make for a good discussion.

I know a lot of my criticisms of laissez faire stem from the argument of human corruption. That the government needs police industry to keep the consumer safe from profit margins. Yet this quote offers up an interesting thought--why should I trust more fallible humans to police fallible humans? Is this system of restrictions just as invalid as laissez faire?

I do have a counter argument to this quote that I'll add to the thread later, but I want to see where you guys go with this first, before I jump into the conversation. We have a lot of free market magicians in PaRD so I'm curious to see where you all go with this quote.

Also, thanks be to Santara for the quote.

Given that humans are fallible, it seems to me that you would want to decentralize it as much as possible.

But that's a recipe for massive inefficiency IMO

sounds like its trying to say government control of business is good in the same way that citizen control of the government is good.

that is to say, if you accept checks and balances are the best way to prolong the life of healthy government, the same must be true for ones ecnomomy.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Aug 4 2014 11:59pm

Government has more transparency and answers to the group.

Even in a not-so-free market, it's in a company's interest to keep certain things private, such as market research. In a completely free market, that opens up insider trading, corporate espionage, etc...things our government keeps illegal and enforces.

I also think government can hold monopolies on certain things, such as force, because it's not driven by personal gain. The goal of a company is to make money. The goal of the government is to enforce fair laws (or at least it should).

The fact that many government employees dont have to worry about profit or pleasing customers makes it even worse. They are free to be incompetent jackasses with far less repercussions.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 5 2014 04:21am

In all but a few cases, participation in a laissez-faire economic transaction is a mutually agreed-to, voluntary transaction. It does not occur as a matter of force, so if one party to the transaction suffers from a moral weakness, the other party has the option to not conduct the transaction - and to also find another party who will, and morally. People have legitimate and reasonable recourse to achieve their goals through finding other voluntary transactions.

Government actions however are the embodiment of force, and there is no recourse for the aggrieved short of hoping to win elections. For example, I pay the gas tax - a tax ostensibly dedicated to roads, as everyone who drives does. What happens when my gas tax doesn't go towards roads, but instead bike trails, trains, lighthouses, museums and so on? Do I have recourse other than waiting for the next election and hoping my guy(s) wins? Not really. I can go complain, but that won't stop me from being shaken down until (or even if) I prevail. Why do my gas taxes get taken from me and used for non-road projects? Because moral deficiencies in the people who control the money tell them "hey, we can use this money for XXX," instead of what's it's actually supposed to be used for.

Groups of people come up with rules that aren't corrupt. One of our Founding Fathers has a lot to say about this in The Federalist Papers. Madison wrote that there are too many competing interests in a democratic government for one interest to get big and write all the rules.

Saying we shouldn't have rules is just juvenile and not a surprise coming from the Mises institute. They are so ate up. Murry Rothbard, one of their founders, has stated that WW2 was a massive plot to murder German and Japanese people and the Holocaust never happens or was massive exaggerated, and insist that people have the right to not feed or take care of their kids, and that kids have the right to find better parents as soon as they are able. Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises had similar insane opinions.

Any rational person rejects laissez-faire economics because we don't have laissez-faire anything else in life.....we have rules. Some economists don't think we should have rules, and they're the ones who are writing for fringe websites and not writing actual social policy.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 5 2014 08:48am

Existential fallacy.

I've never met a rational person who understands laissez-faire economics not reject it, especially economists themselves. Anybody accepting it is exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect or they have an insane philosophy that includes slavery being permissible if entered voluntarily initially, children who have the rights to leave their parents when they can walk, or that parents have the right to throw away their babies, like Rothbard and Mises themselves.

Santara, do you follow the logic to its conclusion like they do? If not you're being real hypocritical here. Last I heard you were even against abortion rights.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 5 2014 08:54am