The economic rationale for laissez-faire has been able to show its historical basis in the political production of a particular social pattern. Legal scholars of the precedent few years tremendously supported supplementary government directive and additional authority for the courts, partially in order to be in charge of businesses for ecological and other motives, but more generally in hopes of accomplishing egalitarian results along the well-known lines of race, status and rank. AIM OF THE PAPERIn this paper I will analyze the extent to which laissez-faire Capitalism is compatible with justice. BACKGROUNDEconomists are never as confident or as dogmatic as when they are giving advice to developing countries.
From the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to say nothing of Washington's think tanks, pour forth the encyclicals and injunctions: Open your markets to foreign capital and goods. Respect intellectual-property rights. Pay your debts. Deregulate your domestic markets. Dismantle your state planning agencies and trust in the benevolence of the invisible hand. This advice has only one disadvantage: it doesn't work and never has. No country that has successfully developed has ever followed this path.
Countries that eschew the laws of laissez-faire perform demonstrably better than countries that embrace it (Marshall, 2000). This has been true from the start of the Industrial Revolution, and it is true today. DISCUSSIONEven nineteenth-century Britain and America, portrayed in economic lore as the most virtuously laissez-faire of rising economies, were never free traders. Britain developed its infant industries behind the walls of high tariffs and a tight technical embargo. It was illegal to export blueprints of textile machinery. Britain did not begin to embrace the god of the invisible hand until its own industries had achieved technological supremacy.
Moreover, the peoples of the industrializing European countries were actually resisting the logic of the market and tried to limit its sway from the very beginning at the end of the 18th century. Thus, despite the dangers to the material reproduction of society, its members sought to limit the market mechanism through state measures to protect them against the ravages of the self-regulating market (Polanyi, 2003). The source of this self-protective movement which counters the influence of laissez-faire ideology can be located in the social and cultural destruction wrought upon society and its members by the treatment of land, money and, above all, labour as if they were commodities; "obviously the dislocation caused by such devices must disjoint man's relationships and threaten his natural habitat with annihilation".
(Marshall, 2000) The catastrophe of the market is not, for Law supporting advocates, that it impoverishes workers as part of its routine operation, or that it has an intrinsic tendency to produce economic crises. Indeed he rejects the Marxist approach by noting that the industrial revolution and laissez-faire actually went together with rising material living standards.
Those who stress exploitation partake in the "economistic prejudice": they "hide from our view the even greater issue of cultural degeneration". (Polanyi, 2003)For Law supporting advocates, then, the commodification of land and labour is "only a short formula for the liquidation of every and any cultural institution in an organic society". (Lacher, 1999)