Laissez-Faire What?
There appears to be some confusion about the terms “laissez-faire” and “free market.” This is not surprising. The goal of political language is to make rulers appear necessary, and confusing issues to direct blame away from political control is a critical part of this effort. Politicians of all types say whatever they think will get them more power, and definitions suffer as a result.
If the ideas of “laissez-faire” and “free markets” are to mean anything substantive, their proponents must seek to apply them universally. This would be an act in direct opposition to establishment politics, which bases treatment of people on their position within the political hierarchy. Cronies, partners, powerful supporters, and other members of the political class get the most favorable treatment.
A “free market” does not mean that established interests are free to use coercion to monopolize the market and insulate themselves from consequences. A system that privatizes profits and socializes costs and losses is not a free market.
Similarly, laissez-faire is not about letting political cronies alone. Their privileged positions are established and supported by government rule. The population that sustains them is never let alone. Decisions are impacted by numerous regulations, licenses, taxes, and fees that are written by the rich and powerful for the express purpose of strengthening political class control over the economy (that means control over the decisions of countless individuals they have never met and will never share costs with).
The following question must be raised about any alleged free market proposal or society: is there a fundamental layer of coercion upon which the system lies? If there is then the market is not free and laissez-faire within the system is a joke.
It is unlikely that a market can be entirely free, as aggression and wrongdoing will always exist and will affect choices in some way. However, voluntary exchanges that take place outside systems of institutionalized aggression (outside of political class control via the state) deserve to be called a free market. This includes countereconomic ventures. When laissez-faire is applied generally and would-be rulers leave the people alone to make free exchanges, the general market will have been liberated, and we will live in a freed market. This will be a revolutionary change, which will require some kind of revolution.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
What a great point. You’re never going to escape people using force; any society will have some of that, and that force will restrict others’ choices to some degree. To that degree, the market is not “free”.
I agree with you, therefore, that the persistent problem is not force / aggression / coercion as a second-order, countervailing dynamic against the otherwise voluntary and spontaneous market, but institutionalized force / aggression / coercion that need not compete at all.
Maybe we should call what we propose “the non-institutional market” or “the counterinstitutional market” because of how important it is that the market realize these spontaneous interests which reflect actual, present needs and not just perpetuated agendas of abstract organizations. That’s anti-state and anti-corporate; indeed, the biggest subsidy corporations get, in my book, is entity status.