lazy-faire

[Matthew Njaa]

The Laisez-faire economic philosophy seems a little silly to me. I understand that the economy goes through a cycle of highs and lows and generally follows that pattern for the most part, and that if given time, it will correct itself. In times of trouble, people look to the government for help and guidance to ease their problems and make life easier, but of the government refuses to intervene when these situations occur, whats the point of electing a government? It seems that the country would be just as good off wihout a government than with one.

[Mr. Delainey]

As I mentioned in class, you've made a very astute observation here: what's the point of having a government if it doesn't act like a government?

Sounds simple. However, if you look back in time there were periods in which a laissez-faire approach to governance was seen as the best to order ourselves. The view that a government should intervene or regulate or pass protective laws or hold corporations to certain legal standards...well, that was considered interference which violated liberal democratic rights, etc.

In reality, governments can (and must) do things for individuals that individuals cannot do for themselves. I used the example of fire protection before, i.e. One person cannot afford to staff/pay 20 firemen to remain on call (or pay for the fire truck and other equipment); however, if you spread that cost over many people (through taxation) and you use government (to organize fire protection) everyone can have their homes protected. The same goes for policing, transit systems, etc.