Sides? (was Re: the terrorist bombings in London

[Paul Mackin]

François Monti wrote:

> Paul Mackin wrote:
>
>>> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a >supply
>>> and demand economy, laissez fairer, political
>>> self-determination, democracy (these *are* the next
>>> steps after debt relief).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not really sure about this. Perhaps this IS the precise junction in 
>> history at which to begin the switch from the Capitalistic 
>> politico-economic system to the more equitable Unicornistic p-e system.
>>
>> P.
>
>
> I would actually be interested in knowing whether  "laissez faire" has 
> ever been "de rigueur" over the last 250 years. I see protectionism 
> and subventions; black ships and win-lose deals. Perhaps this is the 
> precise junction in history at which to begin the switch from the 
> Statist politico-economic system to "laissez faire".
>
> The problem is not capitalism, it is State-enforced capitalism and 
> State-enforced socialism.



"A group of capitalists rarely gather together under one roof without 
the talk turning towards collusion against the public."

--Adam Smith

As I recall laissez-faire was thought of by Smith as simply a disirable  
tendency  set in opposition to British and French and Spanish 
Mercantilism in which the accumulation of weath was thought to be in 
need of strict guidance by the State.