Talk:Laissez-faire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laissez-faire article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles	WikiProject Economics	(Rated B-Class, High-importance)
	Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WPLibertarianismLibertarianism articles	WikiProject Libertarianism	(Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
	Libertarianism portal v • d • e Laissez-faire is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.

Contents 1 Inaccuracies? 2 laissez-faire applications 3 Failure? 4 Ludwig von Mises Institute 5 Why Objectivism

[edit] Inaccuracies?

"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.

"Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use the laissez-faire philosophy, as it can easily be interpreted through his inaugural speech." Please, then provide the source, so the reader can interpret for themself. I could not find any reference to laissez-faire in Thomas Jeffersons inaugural speeches. Without a source it is just unfounded speculation.

[edit] laissez-faire applications

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)

[edit] Failure?

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.

[edit] Ludwig von Mises Institute

• John V. Denson (ed). (2001). Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 0945466293 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)

[edit] Why Objectivism

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)