UNDERSTANDING LAISSEZ-FAIRE

Those who are flirting with the Tea Party need to be aware of just what the Party is all about…because these are the folks that are complaining about government interference. The Tea Party’s candidate “de jour” is Dr. Rand Paul, the son of Congressman (and doctor) Ron Paul. The Paul’s both have developed a reputation, as Bill Maher describes it, of “speaking NON-SENSE to power.” Congressman Ron Paul I have personally heard say that the Civil War needn’t be fought because slavery would have eventually ended anyway. Yeah, in another three or four thousand years! The Paul’s argue a pure laissez-faire policy. The basis of the libertarian “movement” is laissez-faire, in philosophy. They do not want government to interfere in any way.

Those who want to embrace this policy need to understand just what no government interference means. I have always held to the principle that most people are conservative when if refers to others but, very liberal when it comes to themselves. They are against the government interfering when it comes to their business, however, if their neighbor starts dumping contaminants in their backyard they’re complaining because the EPA isn’t out there to protect them. People are against the federal government getting involved in healthcare until they can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing condition or their insurance company drops them when they get sick, then they expect the government to be all over the insurance companies. So, here is a little background on what Laissez-faire means in practice.

In economics, laissez-faire means allowing industry to be free from government intervention, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies, and more specifically today in terms of regulation. The phrase is French and literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone."

According to historical myths, the phrase stems from a meeting in about 1680 between the powerful French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert and a group of French businessmen led by a M. Le Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants, Le Gendre replied simply "Laissez-nous faire" ("Leave us be", literally "let us do"). This is sort of interesting to me because modern day conservative Americans (Tea Baggers) are quick to belittle European governments and ideas, and like to criticize the French in particular, yet France is where all this comes from.

The laissez faire slogan was popularized by Vincent de Gournay, a French intendant of commerce in the 1750s. Gournay was an ardent proponent of the removal of restrictions on trade and the deregulation of industry and economic prosperity in France. Gournay was delighted by the LeGendre anecdote, and forged it into a larger maxim all his own: "Let do and let pass.” His motto has also been identified as the longer "Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!" Although Gournay left no written tracts on his economic policy ideas, he had immense personal influence on the thinking of his contemporaries, notably the physiocrats, who credit both the laissez-faire slogan and doctrine to Gournay.

Before Gournay, P.S. de Boisguilbert had enunciated the phrase "let nature run its course.’ Laissez-faire was one of a number of French "free trade" and "non-interference" slogans coined in the 17th century. D'Argenson, during this time, was better known for the similar but less-celebrated motto "Govern not too much.”

The Doctor Paul’s are on record criticizing the section of the Civil Right Act of 1964 when it comes to interference with private business. Meaning: They think service or goods should be able to be denied to individuals for any reason, including race, by businesses, on the basis that they are private. The Paul’s believe private business owes nothing to the public. Doesn’t this seem idiotic to you? The Paul’s apparently think that government has no business making rules for businesses. So what if they sell poison to children?

Private businesses whether they like it, or not, depend on our government. They use our streets, utilities, police protection, fire protection, and they use our currency. In my opinion, this should rightfully give us as a society adequate reason to impose restrictions on how they go about their business. If they want to sell their goods and services to our citizens they should have no objection to playing by our rules. Believe me, there are plenty of third world countries that will not restrict their business practices, and of course, this is why they are third world countries.

The misguided notion that everyone will do what is right if left to their own devices should have been resolved by the time each of us reaches kindergarten. As the new Kentucky Senate Candidate, Dr. Paul, has now gone further. He has stated that its “un-American” for the president to criticize British Petroleum for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, Dr. Paul said; “I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen,” and then went on to say it was “un-American” for the president to be using language like placing the governments boot on the throat of BP to insure they paid for the damage. Forget that we have an ample supply of evidence to conclude that the accident was the direct cause of BP’s actions. I guess that Dr. Paul’s position is that since BP is a private business we should just let it go, trust them to correct the error they committed, and clean up the mess they created; believing that they will reimburse all the effected lives and businesses without any prodding from our government. They will make everyone whole for their mistake. That is what we’re supposed to believe!

Laissez-faire, stretched to its intended purpose, means “we the people” (remember that is who the government really is, us!) do not have the right to say that discrimination is wrong and we will not tolerate it if you want to participate and be a part of our society. Or, that “we the people” do not have the right to inspect the food we eat or deny businesses the right to sell tobacco and alcohol to minors. I guess we should abolish traffic rules. Just let us drive the way we want. The whole notion of “leave it alone” is not conducive to an organized society. Rather than measure government by a laissez-faire standard we should measure the government by efficiency standards. We should not care how big or small a government is. We should care about how efficient the government is. That would be a fair argument to have.

We will, and should, forever protect everyone’s right to speak out in support of any lunatic idea they choose, but it does not mean that free speech implies that we will let anybody do whatever they want. Organized societies have rules, and rules are the difference between order and chaos.

I cannot believe there is anyone, other than a greedy banker, who thinks “we the people” should not govern the banks in a much stricter sense in light of the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. I have mentioned before in this blog that we as a country and culture have been sold a bill of goods based on capitalism as all good and socialism as all bad. There are good and bad points to each system and we are foolish not to take advantage of the best of both systems. The religious right, who seems to be behind much of the Tea Bag movement, needs to wake up and realize they could be worshiping the God of capitalism just as much as any other false god.

An editorial in the May 22, 2010 edition of the New York Times summed it up pretty well.

“It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.

It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace.”

AAAAAAAmen, brotha!

THE INSINCERITY OF DEFICITS HAWKS

As all progressives must restate to begin with…I am in FAVOR of living within my means, both on a personal and public basis. However, today’s versions of “deficit hawks” are insincere to say the least. Hopefully their insincerity can provide a lesson for the future.

The lesson is really pretty simple. First, we took our foot off the gas as far as deficit reduction during the George W. Bush Administration in 2001. As Dubya took office we were running a $300 billion surplus. We were taking in $300 billion more dollars than we were spending. We were running a national debt ( we owed borrowed money from years past) even as we started accruing this annual surplus allowing us to pay down the national debt. But, the Bush Administration preferred to enact a tax cut policy for the wealthiest individuals in our country. This policy on its very own squandered the annual surplus. To be fair Dubya is not the only one to blame. He was encouraged to pursue this policy by Alan Greenspan, who has probably been the most overrated Fed Chairman in history. Alan Greenspan was good at one thing…giving bad advice, and that record becomes more clear every day.

Second, we engaged in two major wars without paying for them. This is completely counter to our record for other wars in our national history. We always understood there would be sacrifice when we engaged in war. We understood the sacrifice in lives lost, and we understood the cost in the treasury lost. War is expensive and we borrowed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These mistakes in tax policy and wars were made in fiscal terms. The mistakes are NOT being made now that we find ourselves in a fragile condition. The dollars are not being squandered today on stimulus and spending that we are pursuing domestically. Not to stimulate our economy as we did in 2009 would have meant a longer more protracted recovery period that would render us in peril of failure everyday it lasted. We are fortunate to have the size and economic system that allows us to use our government to stimulate and restore our economic well being.

The recovery will eventually bring us back to where we were…growing and strong. Hopefully will have learned our lesson and use budget surpluses properly in the future to control our overall national debt and prudently choose the expenses we pursue.