Wikipedia discussion of Laissez-faire

[federalistnp]

It seems that there author is under attack for claiming that Adam Smith supported a Laissez-faire economy. I would allow there argument for micro points like the case for competitive markets. However, you can instantly smell some progressivism when they suggest that a lack of regulation leads to fascism or anything vile. There is a little bit of truth in the fact that the phrase was not coined by Adam Smith, but he still favored policies that allowed free market principles to apply: markets set their own prices without outside influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laissez-faire

I suspect that progressive thought police are on the move to confuse the language and then manipulate the language into something that conforms to their world view. This is the mechanism that progressives have been using for decades; change the language, create meccas for pseudo-marxist statists in Universities, indoctrinate using the special cases and language, and vilify those who don't conform.


Read for yourselves. I'm interested in your opinions on this.

 

[hugolp]

I really dont want to. I will probably get angry.

 

[tmosley]

Those idiots think that Laissez-faire means no regulations, but lots of "subsidies and other assistance".

You're right, they are trying to demonize something by redefining it to what they preach as being good, and then blaming the old definition of it for the problems that ensue. This is why the "free market" failed us.

 

[bill50]

That's true. I've noticed that whenever an economic system, no matter how interventionist and how closely it follows the original planks of the Communist manifesto, if it allows the rich to get richer, it is called capitalism.

If China goes 100% free market and becomes an economic superpower, it will be because of their wonderful implementation of socialism to some people.

 

[tmosley]

That's true. I've noticed that whenever an economic system, no matter how interventionist and how closely it follows the original planks of the Communist manifesto, if it allows the rich to get richer, it is called capitalism.

If China goes 100% free market and becomes an economic superpower, it will be because of their wonderful implementation of socialism to some people.

You hit the nail on the head with the reverse case there.

Socialism: defining our way to a "better" tomorrow!

 

[Objectivist]

Hitler and Mussolini owned the banks, the trains, the car companies, the airlines, the shipping, etc. SHit the Nazis regulated everything they could think of. Fascism is partial government ownership and control of business and industry by government.

Capitalism is two private parties engaging in commerce without government involvement.

More and more students are starting to look into this themselves and are finding that the government run schools are in fact trying to indoctrinate them to the fascist ideal.

 

[Shed]

I edited the USA part. For some reason it said that Hamilton and Clay were proponents of laissez-faire! I don't know whether the confusion was over the meaning of the word 'proponent' or the phrase 'laissez-faire'.

 

[federalistnp]

Those idiots think that Laissez-faire means no regulations, but lots of "subsidies and other assistance".

You're right, they are trying to demonize something by redefining it to what they preach as being good, and then blaming the old definition of it for the problems that ensue. This is why the "free market" failed us.

I like being right about something every now and then

What do we do now though?

We need to rehijack the language.

 

[tmosley]

The only thing you can do is tell them that they are twisting the language, and that they need to stick to the actual meaning of words, or nothing they say has any real meaning.

It may b helpful to preface every conversation with one of these bozos with a definition of terms section where every important word that is often twisted around is defined, so that when they try to twist the words, you can just point to the definition and say "WRONG!"