Talk:Laissez-faire/Archive 1

message: Hi,
In this article, there is a particular distinction made between laissez-faire and laisser faire. I've searched the web and can't find confirmation of this, and I'd like to know if it's a commonly accepted difference. Sources would be especially welcome.
Phil C.
:"Laissez-faire" translates into English as "[you] let it be" (imperative) while "laisser faire" translates as "to let it be" (infinitive) --76.2.44.243 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laissez-faire vs. laisser faire 

message: The sentence "Note that the government of the Soviet Union never achieved "communism" as it saw it, that is, the perfect socialist state." is a non-sequitur. The historical success of the Soviet Union in achieving communism is entirely irrelevant to the claim by some critics that capitalism is unachievable. It is possible to mention a criticism of capitalism without bringing up a similar criticism of communism ;) Slinky Puppet 11:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of the success of SU? 

message: There are far too many unsourced claims being made. For example:
*Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use the laissez-faire philosophy, as it can easily be interpreted through his inaugural speech. The fact that he made comments in his inaugural speech [needs link] does not support that he was the first to adopt the philosophy. Who has made this claim.
*The government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom believed that lessening the power of the state in the economy would improve things. After a period of intense pain to many, this was found to be the case. Was it specifically the promotion of [i]Laissez-faire[/i] that helped or did other factors also contribute? I'm not an economist so I don't know but there needs to be a link to an expert that makes this specific claim and provides evidence.
*However, much less intervention occurs than did before Thatcher and Reagan's changes were made. Everywhere? This needs a source
Slinky Puppet 11:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) stands out as the classic example of lasseiz-faire's failures —the failures of the English government to act on behalf of its Irish subjects (excluding deliberate malfeasance, and other finger-pointing) is directly tied to the lasseiz-faire economic policies of the English government, wherin a climate of malfeasance and injustice could dominate. After the horrors of the famine became widely known, English economic policy, as well as the political balance in Parliament shifted from Conservative to Liberal, and did not much change until the World War II period. Because the Great Famine can (ironically) also be traced to protectionist policy (in the Corn Laws) critics point to this type of schism in the real world (between idealised freedom and protectionism) as typical of lasseiz-faire. 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I vote for deletion!! Intangible 08:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! This is self-contradictory nonsense.  Lassez-faire is blamed for the Irish Famine (with no concrete evidence) AND protectionism is blamed.  I guess using the word "ironically" in parentheses is supposed to make up for it.  NONSENSE. DELETE.Joey1898 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)]] 

message: Can anyone provide a source for the American System being a contrast to Laissez-faire? Thanks, -Will Beback 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American System 

message: i would like to use this phrase, but im not sure on the exact pronunciation.  add a phenetic pronunciation please
:The article already has e phonetic pronuciation - "(lɛze fɛr)". For those who find that mysterious, a rough version would be "lay-zay fair". -Will Beback 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to intervene and point out that the correct French pronounciation is closer to "leh-SSEH fair." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.74.187.250 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  add an english phonetic pronunciation 

message: === Markets without oversight tend toward collusion as in Archer Daniels Midland ===
This comment is internally incorrect as well as not relevant to an article on Laissez-faire.
* ADM had oversight and because of this oversight it received both  civil and criminal penalties for violations of law.
* The agricultural products market in the United States is both highly regulated and highly subsidized — with ADM through its lobbying connections influencing both regulation and its flow of price subsidies.
* In the context presented in the article collusion is undefined.  Collusion  might be legal, voluntary agreements  among producers, or among consumers, or between producers and consumers; or it might be fraud or anti-trust violations.  In context, tend is too vague to give the sentence a plain meaning.
=== Markets without oversight tend toward fraud as in Enron ===
This comment is unsupported
* The connection of fraud to Enron is well-established.  The connection of laissez-faire to Enron is not.  Rather than not being regulated, Enron was regulated and exploiting weaknesses in the complex system of auditing rules, tax laws, confidentiality laws, etc. but only for a while.
* It wasn't a last minute appeal to laissez faire, but a phone call by the former United States Secretary of the Treasury in the Bill Clinton administration,  Robert Rubin, to end the Enron investigation.  Nothing could be further from that sorry incident than laissez-faire.
There are far better criticisms of laissez-faire than the two cited above, but first, let's clean up these two. patsw 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of ''Criticism'' 

message: This comment is unsupported
* The connection of fraud to Enron is well-established.  The connection of laissez-faire to Enron is not.  Rather than not being regulated, Enron was regulated and exploiting weaknesses in the complex system of auditing rules, tax laws, confidentiality laws, etc. but only for a while.
* It wasn't a last minute appeal to laissez faire, but a phone call by the former United States Secretary of the Treasury in the Bill Clinton administration,  Robert Rubin, to end the Enron investigation.  Nothing could be further from that sorry incident than laissez-faire.
There are far better criticisms of laissez-faire than the two cited above, but first, let's clean up these two. patsw 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markets without oversight tend toward fraud as in Enron 

message: What are our sources for this article? Where does this come from?
*President Reagan called his plan the "New Federalism" calling for a reduction in welfare programs across the board. Despite rhetoric, President Reagan did not follow strict 'Laissez-faire' especially towards trade. Several times during his eight year administration quotas were placed on the importaiton of Japanese cars helping American automobile manufacturers and their workers while tariffs were enacted to protect certain industries such as tool-making (Craftsman tools) or motorcycles (Harley-Davidson).
Are we conflating tariff policy with Laissez-faire economics? I would have thought that Reagan's most notable laissez-faire policies were internal, such as deregulation, corporate and income tax reform,  and anti-unionism. We should mention those before mentioning minor tariff issues. -Will Beback 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should mention all of it.  Go ahead and add your information as it is accurate as well. --Northmeister 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also restored deleted material on the United States in the Cold War, links within the sentences provide ample sources therein.  Germany, Japan, France, and the United States all followed their unique interventionist paths after WWII until around early 1970's for USA, late 1970's for France, 1960's (limited) for Japan with some economic liberalization.  All of it fits for the contrasts in the Cold War and the subsequent slow embrace of laissez-faire by all except Japan and Germany (and some degree France). --Northmeister 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Twice the United States information was removed. Why are you removing it? What do you dispute in the information? --Northmeister 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked you what your sources are but you haven't responded. The U.S. space program has nothing to do with this subject. You are making assertions without sources or attributions. -Will Beback 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would discuss with me here in talk before outright deletions that would be fine, we could work together and come to agreement.  I can see your point on the Space Program but maintain mine.  I would have agreed with you about a source needed about that; but instead you delete my material and add comments in the edit summary such as 'American System cruft' which is not assuming good faith and a round about personal attack on my credibility.  Why?  AGF with other editors. I have reported your violation of 3RR.  In the future please be more civil and work with me in good faith. --Northmeister 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started this thread to work with you and other editors. Please don't add unsourced and unerifiable material. -Will Beback 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You added after the statements made in edit summary and after deleting my material.  You know full well I am willing to provide sources for what I add.  You deleted in-spite of this.  Deleting other editors work over and over again is violation of 3RR.  As I said above I am more than willing to discuss and work edits out; you did not have this in mind and did not assume good faith with my edits. --Northmeister 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't know that you will provide sources. You've never filled my requests for sources at American System (economics), and it appears that you are now using the original research in that article as a basis for adding material in other articles. -Will Beback 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is bull and you know it.  Anyone will by reading the discussion there actually. --Northmeister 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about sources for this article? What sources did you use for your re-write? -Will Beback 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you challenge specifically? Plus, restore my edits and we will work on them one by one.  If I cannot back them up or if after your argument, I agree with you that it is not relevant after reconsideration; then it can be taken out.  Work with me not against me, which more often seems to be your crusade in stalking me. --Northmeister 19:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again which edit that I made? And again work with not against other editors and assume good faith by restoring your deletions. By what source have you deleted any of the material you question without placing {fact} first and giving me time to respond or discussing it here with me on the individual edit I made?  RJIII may weigh in or any that I have asked to weigh in and if I am wrong for inclusion of material then so be it.  But, you simply delete all my edits, question them over and over again...so you must have some relative source that refutes what I add....Well what source refutes my material that you so strongly object too?  And what edit are you talking about, since you deleted pretty much everything I included four times, which is a violation of 3RR? --Northmeister 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not deleted anything from this article that is sourced. Since you refuse to provide any sources that you used to write this material I am forced to believe that there were no sources, that you wrote it off the top of your head. If you cannot provide the sources you used to write this then we should go back to the prior version. -Will Beback 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again provide a list of questions you have about my edits or those edits and I will respond with citations.  By the criteria you use, then it seems to me that every statement is not sourced in this article and should contain a citation after it.  Provide which edits of mine you contest and why? --Northmeister 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking what sources you used to write this. Stop playing games and show us the sources you used. If you have none then please say so. You either used them or you didn't. As for specifics, the material that I removed needs sources if you want to restore it. Citations are needed for any material marked with {fact} request.  -Will Beback 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then mark my edits you dispute with {fact} and give me a reasonable chance to respond to you - rather than deleting my edits outright.  That is assuming good faith.  I stated over and over again I rather work with editors than be in a form of argument with them over their bad faith and outright deletions. --Northmeister 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time I added the {fact} requests you simply deleted them.. So, please, can we now have the sources? -Will Beback 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not entirely true.  You deleted my material on the United States with the statement in edit summary "American System cruft" for starters and did not provide a {fact} request along with other deletions in that edit of yours.  If you had started with these simple requests rather than deleting my material (I could see if you do not know of my edit history per other articles, but you know full well I provide sources for disputes when requested and that I do not add material to articles unless I feel it is relevant, which doesn't make it necessarily relevant, sometimes I make judgement mistakes...but I am human). Again, restoration of material, putting {fact} after that which you dispute, then engaging with me in talk here about the disputed facts (what do you dispute again since you deleted so much?) would help out here rather than simply disrupting this page to make some sort of 'cruft' point as you stated. --Northmeister 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add your sources, please. -Will Beback 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof is on those wishing to add the material. I've been asking for sources since February (see above) and haven't received any from Northmeister. Rather than providing them he's now claiming I violated the 3RR when applying {fact} requests. Let's see what sources turn up, but it appears to me that the editor simply wrote the material off the top of his head. -Will Beback 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't just provide (fact} requests, you deleted material outright without discussion or asking for a {fact} on it.  So please be honest here.  Second, in February you asked a general question, that other editors chose not to answer themselves because it was so out of sort to begin with.  Again, restore, then provide {fact}, then work in good faith rather than violating 3RR over and over here to make a point. --Northmeister 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not restoring unsourced information. Find sources for it and restore it when you have. Please provide citations for the items marked {fact}. Also, please stop making false charge of 3RR violations. You apparently have not read our WP:3RR policy. -Will Beback 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, contrare!  "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that. It may apply to as little as a few words or, in some cases, just one word that is continually added and deleted. Use common sense; don't edit war. - Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, please discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved. - This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring." -- And, all I wish is for you to provide what you contest so I may respond.  Do so my restoring your deletions and adding {fact} or by providing the text below so I may know what you dispute. --Northmeister 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have violated the 3RR please find an admin to agree with you and block me for 24 hours. Otherwise please stop making the accusation. I have marked some material with the {fact} tag. Please provide citations for them. -Will Beback 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Thanks for providing citations. This one in particular caught my eye:
* In addition the United States guided by the changes made during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" continued with massive investments by government in highway building under President Eisenhower and the successful Moon landing and space program of NASA started by President John F. Kennedy during the 1950's and 1960's that coupled with military spending maintained through government intervention and expenditure the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929. (Gardner)
The cited book does not include either NASA or the American System in its index. Exactly what does the author say about laissez-faire economics in American in the 1950s and '60s? -Will Beback 07:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Collins book for further information involving NASA and JFK, and read the pages I provided on Gardner for general overview of American economic policy at the time.  Further follow the outside link on NASA's impact on USA. --Northmeister 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one says that that "the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929."? Which one says that JFK started NASA in the 1950s? -Will Beback 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are reading the sentence wrong.  Nobody says JFK started NASA at all, it was started in Eisenhower's administration in the 1950's when he was building the highways which precedes the statement on JFK in the sentence.--Northmeister 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please give the quote that links NASA to laissez faire economics? And also the one that about the middle class growing under the American System, and the one that says the U.S. followed that system from 1861 to 1929. . Thanks, -Will Beback 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the purpose of the paragraph.  Read the what comes before that sentence about Japan, Germany, and France.  It tells what was going on during the cold war that lead up to the Laissez-Faire of Thatcher and Reagan.  --Northmeister 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's omit the non-Laissez faire parts. What about the other question - regarding the U.S. middle class - maybe we'd better omit that too, if it is not about the topic of the article. -Will Beback 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about the topic, indicating what happened in the world prior to the rise of Thatcher, Reagan etc. who advocated Laissez Faire.  Do you have soemthing to improve this article?  Or are you nit-picking here after once again following me to an edit? I am all for improvement and collaboration, but you don't contribute and when sources are provided you nit-pick.  Check them and tell me what is wrong, I did my part and am obligated no further.  Further I deleted the {fact} by accident.  That was not written by me, so whomever wrote that section needs to come up with a source, I think it was RJIII. --Northmeister 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't me. RJII 02:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Will Beback, do not revert entire edits and then bring an excuse in edit summary that is and OUTRIGHT LIE, here is what I said earlier I was going to do and welcomed others to help out after my starting process:
"After reading the article in full, I find it just doesn't handle well. I think in several parts it diverges from the point of explaining 'laissez-faire' and gets to confusing. Further, I don't like the opening paragraph all to well. The opening paragraph should explain the meaning, the history should explain those behind the meaning and movements per say and its comparison to 'free market' which is most often used as a word instead of 'laissez-faire' today. That is not to say that my edits are wrong or others edits; it is just that to much other stuff and not enough on laissez-faire. There is ample room for a contrast section. What do others think? I might work on a sandbox version to straighten this out. I think at the very least we should work paragraph to paragraph on sorting this stuff out to make for a better read; and to cover the necessary components"  I did it in sandbox as I said I would!  YOU REVERTED AFTER I EXPLAINED WHAT I WAS TO DO, and THAT I WELCOMED DISCUSSION and WORK WITH OTHERS! YOUR REVERSIONS ARE UNCALLED FOR and HARASSMENT. I am making a point of protest. --Northmeister 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What sandbox? I think that's a good idea. Let's go back to where we were and work on changes in a sandbox. Talk:Laissez-faire/temp. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I offered sandbox and you responsed with more argument.  So I then re-wrote the article to make it more accurate.  If you have problems with paragraph one, let me know now.  We will go paragraph by paragraph.  Paragraph One, any problems there? --Northmeister 01:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's workk on it in a sandbox, per your suggestion. -Will Beback 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's answer my questions as you said you would...and we proceed from there. --Northmeister 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outright Vandalism and Disruption by Reversion 

message: SOURCE SAYS CAREY IMPORTANT IN AMERICA AND GREAT INFLUENCE (contrary to edit summary charge by Will Beback in his summary):
"All of these were cast into the shade by the one American author who soon acquired an international reputation. Henry C. Carey...Great as was the influence that he exercised at the time...Carey formed a school which counted among its adherents thinkers like Dühring in Germany and Ferrara in Italy, and which included at home three Pennsylvania publicists: William Elder, who wrote Questions of the Day, Economic and Social (1871); E. Peshine Smith, A Manual of Political Economy (1873); and Robert Ellis Thompson, Social Science and National Economy (1875) as well as several other works on protection. Belonging in part to the same school is Stephen Colwell’s A Preliminary Essay to the Translation of List’s National System of Political Economy (1856), with a good historical sketch of the science in which he declared his variance at some points from Carey. Colwell also wrote Ways and Means of Payment: a Full Analysis of the Credit System (1859)." Carey the Economist
SOURCE SAYS LIST IMPORTANT TO GERMAN HISTORIC SCHOOL WHICH DOMINATED GERMAN THINKING (contrary to edit summary charge by Will Beback for his reversion):
"Friedrich List was a nationalist/romantic critic of economic theory and one of the forefathers of the German Historical School...More relevantly, he devloped a theory of economic "stages" which was to serve as a blueprint for the German Historical School...enthusiastic supporter and one of the main architects of the German customs union (Zollverein) and an advocate for the expansion of railroads throughout in Germany." German Historic School List Source  WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS WILL BEBACK? --Northmeister 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those say that the economic philosophy (singular) of List and Cary dominated Germany and the U.S.  The first says that Carey was a great influence on several named ecnonmists, (List) not included), but doesn't say his philosphy was dominant. The second says he was the father of a school of economics and the supporter of certain policies, but doesn't say his philosophy was dominant. Since neither of these men have anything to do with Laissez-Faire, so far as we've seen, they shouldn't be included in this article. -Will Beback 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In context they do belong.  You are taking them out of context and then arguing from that point.  They are fully sufficient in context.  Further, Carey's philosophy was the same as Clays, Hamiltons, Washingtons, Adams, Lincoln's, the original GOP - namely a mercantilist influenced economic policy and was practiced within the USA from 1861-1929 with the exceptions of Clevelands and Wilsons terms in office.  Therefore the USA did not embrace the laissez-faire school of economics as Britain had; thus it is relevant in context.  This also applies to Germany, where the German Historic School (also rooted in Mercantilism and Cameralism, and List's ideals - which the links shows he influenced) whose adherents are called Historicists, advocated a policy similar to the United State's during the timeframe of the 19th and early 20th century. This is all historic fact, and in CONTEXT it fits.  Don't parse words or meanings, attempting to make an argument with 'out of context' persons and words. Do not bring disputes from American System here, or from here to American System - that is frowned on by Wikipedia.  You have asked me to provide sources, I have; in abundance again.  You continue to challenge me with no facts provided as to where you get your data.  That is not acting in good faith and only seems disruption...you have also followed me to Japanese Economic Miracle which is called 'wiki-stalking' which is a form of harassment. --Northmeister 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide the sources which compare and cotnrast List and Carey to Laissez faire. Please do not make that comparison on your own, as it is original research. Complaints about harassment beloing elsewhere. -Will Beback 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources do indicate Carey and List important 

message: "That's a lot of questions. Let's number them.
#First, are you denying that the American System existed, once again?  
#Second, if the before said system, which again we have also discussed previously as being called the 'protective system' and 'national system' did not build the American Middle Class then what are you asserting did?  
#The very fact you are challenging this must indicate you disagree with the facts.  If this is so, then why do you disagree?  
#Are you arguing America did not practice "protective tariffs, internal improvement building, national banking (productive investments/sound currency) during that timeframe - the very definition of American/protective/national System?
#If you are making that argument then based on what?  
#If you read the sources I provide or any other historic book on the era, you will find that America spent large sums of money on what Eisenhower called the 'military indusrial complex' in a race with the Soviet Union during the 1950's-1990 timeframe in order to protect ourselves and the Western world.  This expenditure together with the expenditures on our Interstate Highway system, and through NASA's space program, and the public works projects initiated by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson etc. continued what was a push to stimulate the economy with government expenditure.  Collins in particular speaks of this.  By your very questions, you seem to be indicating that this was never done.  That America did not make such expenditures, that we never practiced the American System of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national banking.  If this is your assertion, which any observer might reasonably conclude from your statements; then by what sources do you claim this?  
#So what say you?"
*1. No.
*2. I am not asserting that anything about the middle class. 
*3. I am disagreeing with your assertion, that is supporte by no sources that name the American System, to say that the U.S. middle class of the mid-20th Century was the product of the American System.
*4. No. I am arguing that no one refers to the American System in regard to American politics after 1900, except for Lyndon LaRouche and, to a much lesser extent, Patrick Buchanan.
*5. I don't know what this question means. 
*6. I don't see that "national expenditures" such as a large army and exotic weaponry are the same as "internal improvements". They certinaly are not high tariffs or a national bank. 
*7. I say that you are trying to make the American System appear relevant to many topics to which it is not directly related. 
Those are my answers. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please  be so good as to post this source you keep referring to which indicates by name that the American System is responsible for the American Middle Class, andt hat it was the dominant system in the U.S. until 1929. I'm trying to work with you, but you refuse this request. -Will Beback 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not required to repeat myself over and over. I stated above why your question is irrelevant because the American System refers to the economic system of America 1861-1929 and it is not necessary to provide any source to indicate it by name; it is by its policies.  That said I provided numerous sources of its name at the American System page. Go there and re-read them and here and here. --Northmeister 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want twenty out of print books and obscure journals with no page numbers. I only want one book or link, with a page number and a direct quote, where some historian says that the American System continued into the 20th century. You keep telling me to look at the American System (economics) article, but it's unsourced there as well. -Will Beback 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The books I provide on THIS ARTICLE can be bought at Amazon or Borders, and can be sought ay any local library...they are not out of print.  The books on the other page can be accessed online or by referring to your local library.  I have not only provide books for reference, and page numbers in some instances...I have provided online sources...You keep asking for them..but they are there in plain site for you to read.  I have asked you for your sources and answers and you give me nothing.  So be it.  I am not obligated to respond to continued harassment here and at other articles by you; stop the wiki-stalking to each edit I make, and stop the harassment.  I stand behind my sources and references in both places and your continued accusations are dishonest. STOP the harassment. --Northmeister 05:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not harassment to ask you to source your additions to this article. You have not provided any single citation for the American System being a factor in the 20th century, on this page or any other, nor have you provided any sources which tie the economists Carey and List to the topic of Laissez faire.  -Will Beback 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions and Answers 

message: Will, you seem to object to the use of two words "American System" because LaRouche uses those words.  Although I object to your reasoning here as stated above clearly; I believe in the commitment to collaboration with you that taking the last fragment of that sentence out would suffice to address your concerns.  I therefore resolve to do this as it is not entirely necessary to keep that last part of the sentence in light of the fact that you object based upon the use of the two words "American System" even though my use of it is in light of its policies which in that light it is correct to use it as it would be to use the two word "National System" or "Protective System" as all three were used interchangeably by Americans in the 19th and early 20th century.  Hence, after thinking this over and in the spirit of assuming good faith which you have not given me but which I always extend to others; and to end this insanity over "two words" because a controversial figure uses them at his website - I will remove that last part of the sentence you object to. --Northmeister 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, after that speech I guess I'm supposed to drop to the ground and kiss your feet for being so magnanimous. Only you don't quite have things right. I am not opposed to your insertion of "American System" into unrelated articles because LaRouche uses the term, I object because he is the only one who uses that term in a modern context, and because you are promoting a view of the American System which is not supported by mainstream scholarship. In ancy case, thanks for finally removing this inappropriate text. I hope you will stop inserting it into other articles as well. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, and that above is good manners and good faith?  I hope those who are concerned understand this editors diatribes when it counts. I never include material without warrant, although as a human I may make mistakes and certainly as a an editor that honors wikipedia policy, I am willing to do what I did in the name of harmony and consensus.  If a consensus were to emerge to keep it, I would support it; because contrary to the above editors opinion; and constant accusation that the idea is 'LaRouche's; the notions of "protective tariffs, internal improvements, national banking to stimulate production" are alive and well in such domains as the Reform Party of the USA; Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Ravi Batra (an economist) and whole host of other economists; modern Japan - Germany - France (although these countries are tinkering with privatization and laissez-faire) etc.  Calling it the American System was what Henry Clay did, but did not invent the concepts - nor did Alexander Hamilton who first proposed them in his three Reports to Congress (or Washington who supported him) - it's roots are further back to the days of Elizabeth I of England and Colbert of France.  None of this is my opinion nor is it contrary to 'mainstream scholarship' as my numerous sources indicate.  The fowl nature of the response I received above indicates to other editors all to well the nature of things concerning this debate. I still extend good wishes to all; as I am one who believes collaboration and reliable sources can overcome disputes over content - the engagement here will also show what the above editor believes regarding this. AGF is two way, as is TALK - no one should have administrator powers who does not understand this simple idea of civility. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what you've repeated many times. But I'm not interested in what editors have to say about the topic, I'm interested in what reliable sources say. I've never seen a quote from Lou Dobbs talking about the American System. He talks about one or more economic principles which you equate with the American System. If mainstream scholars agree with your viewpoint than let's see a reference to one talking about the American System in the 20th century. Your "numerous sources" apparently only address the 19th century. Now then getting back to the article - whaty source do you have that connects List and Carey to laissez faire? -Will Beback 04:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanity and a night of sleep 

message: While User:Northmeister and User:Will Beback are fighting off their 'noble cause' I need to say that this article lacks most of the original meaning of the terms Laissez faire, laissez passer. Adam Smith never used these terms, but the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say certainly did. Instead about arguing about the American System and the Cold War this article should be more about -that- period. Intangible 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to make up the deficit? -Will Beback 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  shame 

message: As this article isn't one those listed in it, and laissez-faire policies are usually now opposed by most modern liberals, I removed the liberalism template. Does anyone disagree? Schizobullet 03:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Laissez-faire is a liberal idea. You're probably only thinking in terms of America. In Europe, liberalism doesn't refer to the welfare state interventionist liberalism that it refers to in America. In America it's called "classical liberalism." C-Liberal 05:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also disagree; liberalism is a very broad term, under which philosophies such as libertarianism fall. See Liberalism for details. j_freeman 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Liberalism template 

message: This article left one thought lingering in my mind: sources? I ceased multi-tasking and headed straight for discussion! Didn't take long to realize I wasn't alone. What really stands out for me, specifically, is the section entitled "Depression." It relies on name-dropping (e.g., Keynes, Friedman) to "lead" the reader down a specific path (Blind Faith as band: good. Blind faith arguments in reference materials: not so good.). If these economists truly "argued" a definitive point, whatever it may have been, why not cite a specific source? The concluding sentence really stands out:
"Thus it is argued by Friedman, and other laissez-faire advocates, that Roosevelt's New Deal further lengthened and worsened the depression."
Where does Friedman argue this? Who, specifically, make up the supporting cast of "other laissez-faire advocates" who, by implication, are in lockstep with Friedman on this matter?
Let me be clear. I am not arguing for or against the assertions made in the article. However, it seems as if the author is trying to persuade rather than inform.
Loincloth 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name-dropping isn't sourcing 

message: Moved from article because it is unreferenced. Intangible 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: Many economists and historians (such as John Maynard Keynes) record that laissez-faire policies played a role in creating the Great Depression. Keyne's believed that classical liberal economics had a fatal flaw, and that was market instability as a result of inadequate investment. In Keynes’s view, since private actors cannot be counted on to create aggregate demand during a recession, the government has the responsibility to create demand. Yergin, Daniel., and Joseph Stanislaw. 1998. The Commanding Heights. Touchstone Book. p 21-22
To the contrary, Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, argued that the Great Depression was not a result of laissez-faire economic policy but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market. They  note that the Great Depression was the longest depression in U.S. history and the only depression in which the government heavily intervened.  In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he argues "A governmentally established agency -The Fedreal Reserve System- had been assigned responsibility for monteary policy.  In 1930 and 1931, it exercised this responsibility so ineptly as to convert what otherwise would have been a moderate contraction into a major catastrphe." Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press. p 38. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. At one point the pegged value was considerably higher than the world price which created a massive surplus of gold.  Demand for gold surged and the world price increased but the pegged value was too low  in the U.S. and this created a massive migration of gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand created a run on the banks that the banks were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the Great Depression by creating, and then not fixing, deflationary pressures.ibid, 45-50 He further argued in this thesis, that the government inflicted more pain upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class.  Friedman concludes that the effects of the Great Depression were not mitigated until after World War II when the economy saw a return to normalcy with the elimination of many price controls were eliminated. This opinion specifically blames a combination of Federal Reserve policies and economic regulation by the U.S. government, which caused the great depression and was exacerbated by raising income taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%, a "check tax," and the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Friedman believes that Herbert Hoover's interventionist policies and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal  policy  further lengthened and worsened the depression.  Friedman concludes, "The Great Depression in the United States, far from being a sign of the inherent instability of the private enterprise system, is a testament to how much harm can be done by mistakes on the part of a few men when they wield vast power over the monetary system of a country."ibid, 50
---
Sorry I made edits to this to provide sources, this is not the same version that was removed from the page. Sorry, I should have copied.  (LDFGeneral 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depression 

message: I took off the wikitable tag - it had problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Slash- (talk • contribs) 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiTable 

message: Is this case still active or can I close it?  --Ideogram 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation active? 

message: The first paragraph has the following sentence “Libertarian-oriented laissez-faire advocates oppose all taxation." That’s not true. Anarchism would oppose all taxes. Libertarianism does not support anarchy, although many people make the mistake of thinking so. Libertarianism believes in minimal government to be least intrusive on one’s life and government to protect people from others being intrusive in your life. Of course taxes are needed to support small government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.38.41 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No libertarians are opposed to pretty much all taxes and regulations. I involve myself in the midst of libertarian crowd so there is no doubt that they do think this. Taxes are theft of property according to libertarianism and hence it should be kept to a mere minimum or nothing at all. Because to support a minimal government that provides a justice system, defense and so on many if not most libertarians advicates for volountary donations or a pay-at-use in order to have a direct control over the government by the population so the government provides a pleasing quality of the services it provides. Lord Metroid 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait.  Is that a capital L because it's just at the start of the sentence, or do you really mean capital-L Liberatarianism?  Fephisto 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Libertarianism=Party=minarchim, libertarianism....I'll back off on pretending I know the precise definition.  Fephisto 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax, oppose 

message: I believe there should be a picture on this page, a hand or something, it always helps me remember economic terms with a picture.
Something like this...  Wrestlenovi 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of a Picture 

message: The Heritage foundation obviously have published this report that those countries have a free market. But obviously the reality isn't so. One can not doubt that the markets in United Kingdom and The United States of America are regulated and subsidized extensively in many areas such as a to give only few examples; agriculture, medecine, production, pedagogy... The list goes on endlessly. Furthermore taxation of many different sorts are being applied such as sales tax, income tax and special taxes on specific products. Considering this, the markets of these two countries are hardly laissez-faire in any type but rather planed extensively to some extent or other. The factual accuracy of the Heritage foundation's publication is hence under all scrutiny and the question is: Should it even be mentioned in the article? I can not see how the Heritage foundation's publication's conclusions could be left in the article. As it obviously portrays the situation in a different way than what reality currently is. Lord Metroid 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Heritage Foundation is a ranking.  So perhaps it should give some mention to the idea of being laissez-faire 'in comparison'?  Fephisto 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that sounds like a viable solution. I'll edit it to that. Lord Metroid 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV of Heritage foundation 

message: Is there any way we can get the infoboxes side by side, rather than on top of each other?  It really doesn't look good. Wrad 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infoboxes 

message: I was just wondering if neutrality was an issue any more in the Great Depression section.  I wrote a little paragraph introducing both views, and added a picture with a neutral comment.  Both sides seem adequately represented.  I want to get that tag off.  Is there anything else to be done? Wrad 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine... NPOV begone! Lord Metroid 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: I can't believe the intro has had this form for so long. Very clear POV, mostly in the second paragraph, which needs to be completely rewritten. On the basis of this introduction, I add a POV tag to the article. 67.171.43.170 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Especially the part about workers rights. "Workers rights" is a pretty vague term. In laissez-faire workers still have rights that are protected. VersaWorka 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, collectivistic wording. Lord Metroid 10:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction: disgusting 

message: My sole complaint with the otherwise excellent article is that it does not profile arguments against laissez-faire doctrine.  This should be included within the article.  Kevin Scott Marcus 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By what I am about to say it is not my intention to belittle you personally. But if you want to edit this article in any constructive ways, I think you need to study the topic a little bit more in detail before you would edit the article. Your statement above is so irrationality that the meaning of your statement made your statement even contradict itself. For starters laissez-faire does not include limited liability incorporationing whatsoever, a phenomenon created by the states involvement in the market. Lord Metroid 10:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sided 

message: Can anybody tell me what the hell is French Michelle? Is this vandalism that has gone unnoticed for a very long time or is there really something called french michelle? Ryan Albrey (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was unnoticed vandalism. -- Vision  Thing -- 14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Michelle 

message: The year was recently changed by an IP-user from 1680 to 1690, which one is the correct one. References on all these dates mentioned would be great. Lord Metroid (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [edit] Origins of the term 

message: There is no such thing as "economic libertarianism". Google it. Economic liberalism is enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singwaste (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both words are very fussy and ought not to be used in such careless fashion. I recommend using a full explanation instead of relying on fussy wording. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from 

message: Grateful comments if any.--Gregalton (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting auto-archiving, hope this works.--Gregalton (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objections to me auto-archiving? This talk page is very long 

message: literally meaning "let people do as they please"
This is a practical translation, not a literal one. The phrase mentions neither people nor pleasure. The literal translation is "let make".—überRegenbogen (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Let do" is also literal, as 'faire' in french means both 'to make' and 'to do.' Agree that calling the longer ('as they please') is not literal, however.--Gregalton (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  literal translation 

message: Our article Jesuits appears to posit that this economic concept in fact was brought by the Jesuits from China, in the form of translating texts which explained the Confucian concept of Wu Wei. Having read the article in question I find it persuasive that the concepts are certainly linked philosophically. I cannot evaluate if it is true that the origin of this is from that through the Jesuits, but do offer it here so that people involved with the editing of this article can think about whether to mention it in this article too. Btw, no mention of Laissez-faire is made in the Wu Wei article, even in passing. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Origins? 

message: Could someone please add a pronunciation guide (or audio recording) of the full phrase "laissez faire, laissez passer" to the article? Thanks.
:Someone apparently did and got the English pronunciation all wrong. At least as far as I learned it, and as far as the IPA pronunciation shows. The recording says "lah-zay" and it should be "lay-say". Someone with recording capability, please fix this. Dave Biskner (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's strange, I've always heard it as "Lah-zey."  Maybe I've taking the wrong econ classes :) I'll fix. .:DavuMaya:. 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: before i changed it the article read" Modern queer nations-" will some one kindly keep a watch for vandalism on this page.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: laissez faire, laissez passer is not only related to economy, what about human relationships, society.. ?
i am dissapointed.
:This definitely needs to change. IMO Laissez-faire should be a shorter article which defines the general concept, and then contains sections for the political/economic philosophy, l-f in human relationships, l-f management style etc.  These can link to the main pages for those concepts which have them.   The economic/political content of this article should be moved to a new page.  I would do it myself, but I am not sure what to call it. I guess Laissez-faire (economics) Laissez-faire (politics). Then somone needs to go through the 'what links here' page and move all of the links, yukMozzie (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  i am dissapointed with this article 

message: :There is WAY too much text above the Content Box. As I understand it, the top portion is for defining the word and concept. This article shoves history into the mix and is very confusing and disorienting. This as it is, is not very user friendly. F33bs (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I have added POV and weasel tags to this page.
This page does not deal very well with the respective arguments.  I personally feel that it contains a lot of non neutral and non factual content.  The article needs a big cleanup.
What stands out to me is the extensive use of weasel words in this article.  A few examples (weasel words italicised):
*Laissez-faire capitalism may be supported by proponents of minarchism and Objectivism.[5] Libertarians argue that laissez-faire produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems.
*According to them, any government intervention such as regulation, protectionism, creating legal monopolies, competition laws, or taxes, interfere with this judgment being reflected accurately in the price and the maximization of economic utility.
*They are against various price controls, in almost all circumstances.[15] They argue that price controls cause shortages due to the shortages in supply of the low price. They are also against certain regulations such as minimal wages and labor unions, stating that these may cause unemployment and reduction of purchasing power of the workers. Some may argue for a negative income tax in place for these inequalities, as they state that it is more efficient than labor laws.
*However, Austrian scholars consider that laissez-faire was never the main doctrine of any nation, and at the end of the eighteen-hundreds, European countries would find themselves taking up economic protectionism and interventionism again.
*Some economists and historians (such as John Maynard Keynes) argue that laissez-faire capitalism fostered the conditions under which the Great Depression arose.
*The Austrian School consider that many modern nations today are not representative of laissez-faire capitalism, as they usually involve significant amounts of government intervention in the economy
*Also, some libertarians believe that the concept of "constitutionally limited government" is a fallacy.
And I'll stop now....  This is by no means an exhaustive list.  These weasle words are being used to inject non neutral and non factual ideas into the article.
I think this article needs to do some things with more clarity than it does at present:
*Define laissez faire
*Define and contrast different types of laissz-faire
*Discuss who uses the term.  Many of the subjects of this article rarely used/use the term to describe their philosophies.  Those who do use it (yes, weasel words) barely rate a mention.
*Discuss criticisms.
Lastly, I think some parts could be drastically shortened, because they are, or could be better, or would be more appropriately covered somewhere else. e.g. causes of the great depression. Mozzie (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Weasel tags! 

message: It seems to me that Objectivism section is unnecessary. Objectivists are proponents of laissez-faire, that fact can be mentioned somewhere in this article, but there is no need for a whole section. Also this section, the way it is written now, has little or nothing to do with laissez-faire. It really talks about Objectivism and the only connection between Objectivism and laissez-faire here is that one citation, the rest seems more like a "short introduction to Objectivism by an Objectivist" which in my opinion has no place in this article. Montclaire (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Objectivism 

message: ::Your comments regarding a general example are to the point. I do believe that the entire article is a mess and that it is as clear as mud and therefore not exactly useful.
::Aside from the comments within the example, there are links within the article that explain all of the issues that you have raised and it would be absurd to turn every article into a jumbled combination of every other article in order to document a point.
::Regarding the specific issue of offshore commercial broadcasting between 1964-1967 to the UK: Pierson was one of several who used a loophole in UK broadcasting law by setting the transmitters and stations within international waters - free from all UK national laws - while merely establishing sales offices on land under British law. The government called them "pirates" but the government would not issue licenses and millions of listeners and major advertisers supported these stations.
::The stations wanted to be left alone - but in the end the only way that the socialist government of the day could silence them was by passing a sweeping censorship law specific to these marine stations. That law made it a criminal offence (fines and prison time) for any British citizen to supply fuel, food, records, sermons, advertising or anything other than life saving assistance to them. That law became effective at midnight on August 14, 1967. There has never been a more specific and clear example of laissez faire versus government control of basic freedoms than this.
::Ted Allbuery, manager of Radio 390 at the time, compared on air - before the law came into effect, the fact that there had never been such a thing as an illegal sermon in England since the Middle Ages - before the law of August 14, 1967 - which by the way, is still in effect.
::What you want to do with my contribution is up to you because I don't have time for the complicated mess that such a simple issue has been turned into. As I wrote a moment ago, it would be fine as a general example and yes, this theoretical mess of an article certainly does need to be brought down to the real world in which human beings live - otherwise it reads like a hot air controversy over absolutely nothing at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.84.207 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot air controversy versus real world 

message: "Adam Smith played a large role in popularizing laissez-faire economic theories in English-speaking countries".  
I have a hard time accepting this statement as fact, unless someone can back it up with sources, I think it should go.
Having read the The Wealth of Nations, I would have to consider Adam Smith a very strong advocate for laissez-faire.
:Then you have not understood what you read, nor remembered it. Adam Smith never used the phrase "Laissez-faire", but considered the idea of total deregulation that it now supposedly stands for to be "vile". (In reality, it means no regulations to interfere with business, but plenty of subsidies and other assistance; and plenty of regulation on labor and consumers, but nothing to help them.) Smith did not support what we call the Free Market. He supported the Competitive Market--Cherlin (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies? 

message: I changed the translation of the French.
French: Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! 
to English: A detestable principle that we cannot grow but by the lowering of our neighbors!
from English: A detestable principle that we cannot grow only by being lowered by our neighbors! 
I think that this is both clearer and more accurate, but there it is. The prior translation makes no sense, for example.
(71.177.75.236 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The prior translation is perfectly good literary English. Your translation is execrable--wrong and nearly total nonsense.--Cherlin (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: The reference to "the failure of laissez-faire to allow the government to manage the economy after WWII" is a rather absurd criticism of a system whose philosophy is
specificly to prevent the government from managing the economy.  It's rather like the failure of my car to allow me to stay where I am.
: Fair enough but it is really the failure of the expectations of an ideology and policy prescriptions based upon them. Karl Polanyi demonstrated quite effectively that as much as the "liberal creed" (Ricardo through to Mises et al) desired to construct the "radical utopia" of laissez-faire it was doomed to failure because of its social destructiveness and it naturally brings forth protective mechanisms which are not always progressive (fascism). Laissez-faire is a dangerous pipe-dream, even more so nowadays. 70.53.192.74 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems rather foolish to assert that a system devoid of government involvement leads to a system of government integration in the markets.  Certain people have redefined laissez-faire on this page to mean a system of no regulations that somehow allows for subsidies, which are a form of regulation (ie encouragement of investment in otherwise unprofitable activities).  Laissez-faire means NO government involvement.  This does not lead to government integration, by definition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.9.108 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure? 

message: *John V. Denson (ed). (2001). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Ludwig von Mises Institute.  p.597
*Source 16 is highly controversial and comes from an institution that defends the confederacy during the Civil War.
-Moved from article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.220.126  (talk • contribs) 
That's a misleading oversimplification. To understand Murray Rothbard's position, see ShedPlant (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludwig von Mises Institute 

message: Used to say "Most of the early proponents of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States subscribed to the American School (economics). This school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton". I have changed the word 'proponents' to 'opponents'. I assume this must have been a mistake. The Hamiltonians and Clay etc. were steadfastly opposed to laissez-faire! They were in favour of government subsidy of businesses through tarriffs, central banking and direct handouts. ShedPlant (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States section 

message: How are Laissez-Faire policies applied in the 20th century versus how they are correctly applied?
Agreed.  It is obvious that this author has not bothered to read the Wealth of Nations at all.
Yes the article could show that adam smith's "invisible hand" is similar to laissez-faire because it admits a system that works by no intervention from the outside, the hand that controls the system is in fact invisible (so definitely not the state). However, we should not equate "invisible hand" with laissez-faire, it is just a similar concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.188.173 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no similarity. The Invisible Hand works in a Competitive Market, which is by definition not an unregulated Free Market.--Cherlin (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to say that something is by definition not something else, you should define both concepts and explain why they are different.  I myself see no reason that a competitive market is by definition regulated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.150.237 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  laissez-faire applications 

message: I've tried to make the article slightly less biased in favor of laissez-faire.  In particular, I've removed cases where the article sets up straw men only to demolish them.  Long sections are still unreferenced, and references should be provided.  Another fatal flaw is that, after the introduction, the article is almost entirely Americentric.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article starts well, but rapidly declines. 

message: Has any US thrid political party been named Laissez Faire? (1212PMMonNov9091stcentdecidedbyLAPEAJ)COMOESTA (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has any political 3rd US party been named Laissez-faire? 

message: How does this article not include the words "invisible hand", something that article describes as the founding principle of laissez-faire economics?  -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone again.  I don't feel authoritative enough on the subject to work on the article, but if I know anything about lassez-faire economics, it's its dependence on the "invisible hand of the market" concept.  And the invisible hand article makes this statement, sourced, in the header.  Yet it doesn't get mentioned anywhere in this article, or when it does, it gets removed.  What's going on?  -- AvatarMN (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in.  You can now see the invisible hand.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, The Four Deuces, for a terrific reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I've added two more, and toned down the language. Shadowjams (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible hand 

message: The last sentence in the first paragraph does not belong or should site a source.
"Sometimes, but rarely, the phrase is used to describe a form of philosophic anarchism."
WHO SAYS LAISSEZ-FAIRE IS PHILOSOPHIC ANARCHISM?
If this is allowed then Liberism page should read: Liberism is often described as socialism.
The last sentence of the opening does not belong here in the opening. Unless it is an attempt to soil or confuse 
what Laissez-faire actually means. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You were correct to remove it.  "Sometimes, but rarely" does not belong in the lede, especially when it is unsourced.  The Four Deuces (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening unfounded. 

message: Herd of a newly formed Political party in US Capitalist, Anachist,Liberterian named "Laissez faire" True?CraddockKin (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heard of a Anarchisdt/Captalisit /Libeterain Party Laissez Faire in US 

message: Excised, saved here for posterity. See WP:TONE If you don't know why this is a bad idea. Wikipedia articles should not assault the reader.
Source: From d'Argenson's 1736  Memoires  (publ.1858), as quoted in J.M. Keynes, 1927, "The End of Laissez Faire". A. Oncken (Die Maxime Laissez faire et laissez passer, ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden, 1866) indicates d'Argenson used the 'laissez-faire' term firstly in his 1736 Memoires and then in an article in the 1751 Journal Oeconomique (the term's first known appearance in print).
208.76.69.126 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: it can stay in the refs section. 208.76.69.126 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rick. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rick too.  Here is a link to the Keynes essay.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outbursts, famous or not, and not encyclopedia material 

message: Logic dictates that a period end a declarative sentence.  If the entire sentence is a quote, then the period is part of the quote.  "Let it be."  But if the quote is only part of the sentence, logically the period should be at the end of the sentence, outside the quotation marks.  They say, "let it be".
Historically, when text was set in metal type, the period was the smallest and therefore weakest piece of type, and so a tradition grew up to protect the period with a quotation mark as often as possible.  Some people still honor this now useless tradition.  But rules are not set in stone.
"Universal American usage places commas and periods inside quotation marks. British usage does so only if the logic of the quotation requires it."
Wikipedia permits British usage.
Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas and periods inside quotes? 

message: I'm wondering. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it simply, yes, they are the same thing in that they both advocate minimal interference by the gov't. Soxwon (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, no, they are not the same thing.  Free trade refers to trade with other nations, and favors the elimination of tarriffs.  Laissez-faire, at least originally, refers to industry within one nation, and opposes government regulations.  But today they are often used interchangably. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the simply part, Rick. Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are free trade and laissez-faire the same thing? 

message: In the articles of Australia ("Australia is one of the most laissez-faire  free market economies, according to the Index of Economic Freedom.") and New Zealand ("New Zealand is one of the most free market capitalist economies according to economic freedom indices."), it is mentioned that both countries have very free economies, approaching laissez-faire. Maybe this needs to be included in the article here, to have a more worldwide perspective? Thunderhawk89 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia and New Zealand 

message: Good work, Malleus Fatuorum. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malleus Fatuorum edit 

message: I undid the recent revision by 99.35.128.126, which stated as follows: "In fact Smith argued for progressive taxation and against unregulated markets and unfettered business interests. [cites Gopnik, A]"
That is not an elucidating observation, nor a correct one.
* Mr. Gopnik does not say what our illustrious editor insists he said.  
* Laissez-faire does not imply or prescribe any particular system of taxation. It only requires that it not be distortionary of the price signalling mechanism. Progressive, proportional, non-existent and numerous other schemes, are all consistent with laissez-faire.  
* Smith's entire Wealth of Nations was an evaluation & condemnation of distortionary market regulations as they existed in the 18th C. Britain. Smith concludes Book IV with an outline of the system he'd like to see instead.  Rather than quarrel with the editor (or Mr. Gopnik), I'll quote Adam Smith himself:
 Ch.9, Of the Agricultural Systems, or of those Systems of Political Oeconomy, which Represent the Produce of Land | Bk IV, Ch. 9, para 54
That may not mean what everybody understands "unregulated markets" to mean (what does the editor mean?), but it's about as close to it as it gets.  Certainly, a sufficiently decent summary of how laissez faire system is supposed to look like.
* Finally, Adam Smith was instrumental in introduction of liberalizing reforms in the late 18th & 19th C.  His arguments were appealed to constantly by proponents of laissez faire system.  So even if some 21st C. commentator, by resorting to careful editing of a quote here and there out of context, believes he can prove Adam Smith "really meant" something else, it does not really make a difference to the history of laissez faire since everybody, from 1776 on down, thought Adam Smith precisely meant laissez faire. Walrasiad (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Smith 

message: : In the mid-19th century, the United States followed the Whig tradition of economic liberalism, which included increased state control, regulation and macroeconomic development of infrastructure.
Was such illiberal policy (see the link) already called 'liberalism' in those days?? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be synthesis - no page no. is given but here is a link to the source.  TFD (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Whiggery 

message: : [laissez-faire] describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
The word restrictive here is deliberately suggestive. This part of the article is obviously written from the perspective of a laissez-faire apologist. "Free from state intervention" implies zero regulation - not merely zero restrictive regulation. What does restrictive even mean? Ourben (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Free from state intervention' =/= zero regulations.  Laissez faire theorists are adamant about the need for, say, State involvement in the protection of property, guarantee of contract, information requirements and transperancy rules (to prevent fraud) and even many are quite active proponents of State intervention to prevent "distraint of trade" (anti-trust regulation), cf. Henry C. Simons 1948, A Positive Program for Laissez Faire.  I suppose a better word could be found for "restrictive", but essentially laissez faire theorists promote the minimum regulation necessary to guarantee free competitive exchange, but anything beyond that is considered "restrictive".  As for "enforced monopolies" this is a reference to two things - old style commercial charter companies (East India Co. & all that, the bane of Adam Smith, Turgot et al.) and 20th C. government-sanctioned monopolies like nationalized companies, parastatals, public utilities, etc.  Some theorists would include copyright and patent protection under this.  I don't see either as apologetics, but clarifiers.  Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some laissez-faire theorists are adamant about the need for state oversight; some are anarchists.  A better way to say what you mean is that advocacy of some kinds of state intervention do not disqualify the "laissez-faire" label. —Tamfang (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  Although I presume the wording was going for the minimum necessary to qualify for the label.  Walrasiad (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPoV 

message: The english pronunciation audio file is outdated. There is a speech after the actual pronunciation of laissez-faire that doesn't match this article. The current audio file was added in this revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laissez-faire&oldid=221090198
Apparently the speech matches with the first paragraph of that article from 2008, except from the last seconds of the recording which appear to be an original summary of laissez-faire politics.146.247.222.49 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated audio 

message: Obviously in the context of the state, laissez faire has not existed, but that's disingenuous. The citation for that claim is also incredibly lacking since it only cites a work on American history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.92.15 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the cited work is on American history, but the claim is still valid and generally accepted. --Artoasis (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Lawrencekhoo, how about sources like this, this or this? It's rather easy to find more refs to support this statement. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could take it to the talk page first before removing sourced text. --Artoasis (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laissez faire has never existed reference