I am primarly in support of the freemarket system and laissez-faire, however there is one point which dissuades me from fully supporting these principals… Big Buisnesses as far as I can see have a huge advantage, not only over their small buisness competitors but also over common people like you and me. These businesses are able to pay off politicians in order to pass legislation which is benefitial to these company’s and yet harmful to small buisness. yet the laissez-faire system (as far as i can tell) has no way to prevent such tactics from occuring. If you can give me detailed and convincing evidence that this is not the case i would be much appreciated.
Uh, yeah, you’re right, because if you have a state that gives protection to businesses at all, then by definition you don’t have laissez-faire. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
That should be glaringly obvious but it seems it isn’t to some people. [:S]
-Jon
Meh. I hate stupid questions, but I suppose they’re preferable to people remaining ignorant. shrugs shoulders
Well mcc88 I’m new to all this too and this was a question which I also asked myself. I will try to answer the best I understand. Laissez-faire is the complete and utter inability of government to interfere with human interaction. Therefore even if there was a government lobbying would do no good - although you’d have to assume after a while the power seekers would make headway thus its better that there not be any government. No government, no problem. However lets assume there is no government and big business were still eager to bribe people. They could for instance pay off judges, though if they did, they would have to pay the judge so much money that he would never have to work another day in his life because if a deal were to be suspected or revealed the judges reputation and that of his employer, the court, would be destroyed. Plus if the plaintiff suspects foul play he could appeal in a different court. Thus in the free market people naturally supply checks on corruption. If one examines the nature of “Big business” it becomes clear that it cannot exist without government or another coercive power structure. Often it is regulation in its supposed fight against the greedy capitalists that enables such evil to exist. Therefore under laissez-faire big business would likely not exist in its present form. Although these days one often hears “experts”, analysts or commentators decrying the failures of laissez-faire, such a failure is absurd because there is no laissez-faire system.
I wonder if however, because there are governments, attempts to “deregulate” without complete elimination or extreme limitation of them is likely to end badly and be counterproductive for freedom.
I agree. That has been particularly the case with huge lobbies in conjunction with the Bush administration. I am hopeful that Obama will actually make a change and restore the opportunities for the small businesses and individuals.
Its called human beings. Laissez-faire is market organization but human beings as they are will make sure these tactics work on their favor.
Seriously, why do you even bother posting?
This forum should be to post comments, not to put down people.
Intelligent comments that actually contribute to the discussion of AE, I hardly think “what about the poor getting healthcare in free market!!!1111” counts.
Intelligent comments that actually contribute to the discussion of AE, I hardly think “what about the poor getting healthcare in free market!!!1111” counts.
Well, I do not think Austrian Economics has actually stated that poor people should have no health care because they have no money. I am not well versed on the subject, but I an sure there are alternatives via donations, contributions, stipends and nonprofit organization that can perfectly provide healthcare for the poor, respecting free market principles, and I suspect that if they are well managed they are probably most welcome by Austrian Economists.
So solving the issue of the poor actually getting health care in a free market is actually a very intelligent contribution.
And yet, the post mentioned none of that:
Perhaps the post did not mention any of that in a scholarly form, but its ideas are worth a considerations. Let us consider this:
Dont we want our kinds to be able to point Ireland in the map???
American public schools (and private also) are well-known for not teaching any geography. American government failure.
Dont we all want healthcare for our children when they need them???
The US ranks at the bottom when it comes to education and health care among industrial nations.
Also true. I remember the Mises daily article from Thursday or so that concluded that the American economic system was not laissez-faire, but rather close to totalitarian. If the US truly had a laissez-faire economy, would the US still rank at the bottom?
IF only Education/Healthcare were a priority to congress like WAR and BANKS are; we would all be living the American dream.
I remember that a classical dilemma in Economics is “Guns vs Butter”. This statement reflects such dilemma
Economics: Is a social science, not a business science. In Economics we should agree that individuals maximize their wellbeing. Now I ask myself and yourselves. How did we separated education/healthcare from "Economics and put them in communism.???
Perhaps this conclusion is awkward. Not the first time. There are lots of posts that also arrive to awkard conclusions.
Therfore I think this post is completely relevant to the spirit of Mises fora.
Government failure, that’s surely a new concept here, why not create a topic about it?
Is there any point to this?
From what I understand according to AE there is no such dilemma.
Right, there are also posts that actually attempt to make a coherent argument and reach an “akward conclusion”, this isn’t such a post. The poster simply assumes for some reason that the free market can’t provide such services and socialism can, without even attempting to provide an argument or even spend a few seconds making his posts look slightly intelligent. No???////??
Honestly, he doesn’t even attempt to make his posts worth reading and they generally bring down the level of discussion, I wasn’t being mean I just think for the time being he should continue browsing these forums just refraining from posting, meanwhile read up on AE. Then, when he has the ability to make valuable posts he should come back and contribute.
I’m sorry if you’re so overly sensative that you feel the need to take this as a personally.
Check in your profile. I left you a message there. Not like you I have a sense of respect, education and tolerance. Democracy and free market thought are a state of mind.
Indeed, how very respectful you are:
"
Not that I could care. Really I don’t see why you’re taking this so personally, I’m not being offensive, or rude, I’m merely suggesting that it would be best for you and for the forum if you refrained from posting until you educated yourself, or at least learned not to make a fool out of yourself. At the very least you could learn to write a proper sentence and put some effort into your posts. The message you left on my profile was the most thought out thing I’ve seen from you yet.
Well I think you answered your own question, and quite well too. That is usually what happens with “deregulation”.
-Jon
Yes, GilesStratton, I do take it personally.
Julio is from Cuba. I am from Venezuela. We are both from countries that unfortunately are bombarded by socilaism. His country is completely socialist, mine will be soon if people like me don’t learn in places such as Mises how to counteract.
I don’t know where you are from, but you have probably not been bombarded by Socialism the compulsory way we have been forced to. You should sympathize with the baggage that has been impressed upon him. And more important, you should open yourself to learn from his suffering.
Oh I get it, so you come from socialist countries and that gives you an excuse for making worthless posts? How exactly does that work?