What is lassiez-faire?
This concept of lassiez-faire economics revolved around a very limited government and was designed to be free from any real intervention that was not otherwise needed for the market to function on its own. Even though the discussion revolves around liberalism in lassiez-faire economics, the liberalist point of view was not exactly all encompassing of the rest of the lassiez-faire thinkers, especially when it came to Adam Smith, the Scottish economist whose ideas dominated a bit earlier. Meaning “allow to pass or let go” in French, it only makes sense that lassiez-faire economics would call for what would be known as a very rare infiltration of government activity in this favored economic system.
Mercantilists of the time believed in the concept of goodness and individuality. Lassiez-faire basis revolved around the call for government to be as small as possible in order for individual freedom to not be a stretched idea, but instead a reality. This reality came to be a staple of the lassiez-faire system. Classical liberalists made a few assumptions about people based on this idea of individualistic values.
For example, E.K. Hunt described these assumptions as people being “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic” (Hudelson). In other words, pain and pleasure drove people and the decisions made were meant to create a more focused feeling of pain or pleasure. Perhaps the economic liberalists could argue the only motivation to work resided in the idea that a reward lies at the end of the tunnel. Or was it that if a person failed to work, then they would simply fail to exist? We must note that faith also made a point during this era—most notably when it came to Max Webber and Capitalism in Protestantism. This work paved the way to understanding the Protestant work ethic, which was motivation enough to many of the faith.
Lassiez-faire Today
The lassiez-faire system is still relevant today. We see it in today’s society establishments such as Medicaid and welfare programs. These social safety nets—even something such as social security, which the majority can agree is a positive addition—would not have survived criticism during the 1800s. In fact, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, in England, passed thanks to politicians of the time that wanted to limit programs intended to assist persons who were in need (“The New Poor Law”).
Most notable about the classical liberalists was their ideas on political economy. They saw utility, or the happiness of individuals, as the bedrock on which to build their policies. While wide varieties of reforms were sparked from more utilitarian-based thinkers, it most specifically brought forth a justification toward the lassiez-faire economic system. Still, Smith’s “invisible hand” theory was not widely accepted by these liberal thinkers.
The idea of laissez-faire economics was widespread during this time. However, there were different ideas of how directly it should be initiated. For example, some felt that the state should still provide services such as public works and education—the necessities to expand and protect civility. Not until the full-hearted supporter James Wilson (1843) debuted The Economist, was the idea of lassiez-faire more fully accepted. The position that was established was one of great mistrust in state supported education, healthy and utility systems. Instead, private enterprise was put in place to provide the aforementioned services.
Other Ideologies
Aside from this doctrine of lassiez-faire was the American School, inspired by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton opened the idea of a government-sponsored bank and an increase in tariffs. Later, Henry Clay and the American System became known as the main opposition to the free-market system. From this, one can tell that the capitalistic freedom that sprung from the lassiez-faire system was not whole-heartedly accepted by all.
Just as important to the 19th century thinkers was the idea of Social Darwinism. This concept advocates what would become known as “survival of the fittest.” Just as Charles Darwin announced with the animal kingdom, people too were subject to the idea of the strong surviving over the weak. Social Darwinists referred mostly to the notion of struggle and the justification of social policies that create no distinction between those in society able and those unable to support themselves. Advocates simply believe the strong survive and the weak die away. Darwinism itself expanded the ideas of philosophical relations that lie behind racism and capitalism. Believers also tended to reject social responsibility.
Thinkers during the time, such as William Graham Sumner, felt that those free self-governing people could only blame themselves when problems arose. The obligation then was to take care of one’s self, not take care of others. Some political ideologies still hold this as true today. Likewise, accepting support from another person was against the self-work ethic. The opponents of Social Darwinism saw the concept as a link to elitist and imperialist ideologies. Many saw imperialist takeovers not as an act of Social Darwinism but of simple exploitation of subjects by those in the superior group. This was a common occurrence in the European camp when the British and French began their campaigns of imperialism.
Sources:
- "The New Poor Law." Virgin. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2011. .
- Hudelson, Richard. "Modern political philosophy - Google Books." Google. http://www.google.com/books?id=sq-1z8VMhDEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Modern%20Political%20Philosophy&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed August 25, 2011).
Corey Morris - Hello There! I'm a senior at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia and an avid reporter for the campus newspaper, The Rotunda. A ...
