Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness— these were the unalienable rights our forefathers bestowed upon our new nation when drafting the Declaration of Independence; what a far cry from independent our nation has become. Our forefathers guaranteed life and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness; happiness was not a guarantee, but set forth as a challenge for every individual to define and actively pursue for themselves. Surely, when our forefathers declared independence from an oppressive and overbearing king they did not intend for the American Government to become a maternal state that coddles its citizens. Sadly, we have become just that: a nation of citizens dependent upon our government for everything from putting food in our stomachs, to saving money for our retirement.

Being two of the most respected and qualified academicians on public policy, Charles Murray, and Robert B. Reich have never been short of making controversial and contradicting statements which arguably serves only their interest of getting an audience. Public policy as it is has been subjected to lots of changes throughout the history leading to different reactions and opinions from different individuals. “What it means to be a Libertarian-A Personal Interpretation” written by Charles Murray, explicitly describes how the society should view the government by claiming it can help in achieving overall happiness and allowing members of the society to have a right to individual freedom when coping with the changes brought by public policy. On the other hand, Robert B. Reich’s “Aftershock the next Economy and America’s Future” talks about overcoming our problems by keeping a tier of classes. This paper discusses the contradicting views of these two writers.

In America, the debate over the warranted degree of government involvement in one’s daily life is ever-present. As citizens, Americans demand protection and security from our leaders. In return, they provide capital, ingenuity, and a responsibility to society. As can especially be seen in the current time of recession and bailouts, citizens rely on the government to regulate and stabilize of our economy - to act on behalf of their wellbeing. However, this has not always been the case. Subsequent to western expansion, the government was hesitant to impose regulations upon its citizens, especially in relation to their economic pursuits. Political leaders relied on powerful businessmen’s’ support for occupational security - so formed the

Freedom in the United States has become increasingly constricted since 2001. Not only did the terrorist attacks of September 11 have a drastic effect on the U.S. economy, but our nation 's response has tested the limits of America 's core freedoms.

America’s government, which was viewed as revolutionary when created, is often criticized for an array of problems varying on the political beliefs of who is talking. Some see measures which the government takes as half-measures while others see the same steps as a massive unconstitutional abuse of power. But, one would be hard pressed to find a single American who doesn’t hold at least one grievance with our nation’s laws. But, there are reasons why the American government was celebrated when created. A good deal of America’s policies do benefit a majority its citizens.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." (Thomas Jefferson). Why have Americans become so afraid of their own government? Shouldn’t the government pertain to the power of the people? The truth of the matter lies within the people's views on what should take place in the grand scheme of things, yet America exemplifies an increased vulnerability as they acquiesce to the government's scheme to control their lives. In fact, the people of America live in continual fear that the government's "support" such as welfare will exceedingly vanish if they do not comply to the government's desires and allow them to have the final say. Furthermore, if Americans continue to remain in these

According to Professor and author Paul Starr, the debate against National Health Insurance was “intensely ideological” with each side of the argument focusing on the notion of the American ideal. Using the Affordable Care Act as an example, President Obama stated, “the core principle [is] that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health.” The ideological opposition for this stance was provided by congressional republicans who remarked that the passing of this policy would be a “major step towards socialism and aggressive government takeover of the health care system” (Barr, 2011, p. 11).

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,” Gerald Ford (1974) said during his address to a joint session of Congress: a warning to the public about the consequences of giving the Government overwhelming control. After the U.S. gained their independence from the British Hegemony, the Founding Fathers of America adopted the Bill of Rights to protect the people from this very situation. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Nevertheless, by the 21st, the democratic, free nation of

The United States of America thrives on freedom, which is simply one’s power to act, speak, think, and prosper. But one can only prosper if he or she has the starting point of basic material needs. The idea of “basic needs” refers to “shelter, food, and clothing …” (What Are Basic Needs). True freedom is only possible when basic material needs are met, and the government must establish economic security and secure basic economic rights, because it would help people escape poverty and achieve the American Dream, and it would provide the country with a historically-proven, improved state.

The amount of government intervention in people’s everyday lives has always been a disputed topic. Prominent 19th century French thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville, had very different values on the amount of government support to its population than early 20th century American philosopher John Dewey. Tocqueville was not against government trying to help its citizenry, but realized that the United States’ version of democracy has a unique set of flaws. He saw these flaws as exploitable, and focused mainly on the idea of “soft despotism”, a problem unique to democracies that leads the government to coddle its people. A little under a century later, renowned American philosopher John Dewey argued for his new theory of renascent liberalism.

Imagine walking down the street and witnessing a woman receiving a slap across the face for trying to acquire medical treatment without permission. Imagine if a woman was not allowed to work and provide for herself. Imagine if the ability to decide one’s own decisions never existed. Imagine if one could not self-express their beliefs by wearing a head scarf. Imagine a father struggling to explain to his sad daughter why she cannot be transported to an amusement park, or to his innocent confused son the reason people treat a race with such cruelty. Imagine if the reason a race was discriminated and segregated was because of the color of their skin. Imagine if this was “freedom” people live every day. Imagine if freedom

The hunters, gatherers, and entrepreneurs of free-willed, independent people are quickly being supplanted by beggars and unmotivated hoards of whining miscreants. They prefer to accept the federal government as the ultimate power over their economic and personal lives, and then mortgage their future and their children’s futures for more intoxicating quick-fixes by government.

On the other hand, Laissez-Faire; in french it means “to leave” so basically the government didn’t want nothing to do with them at this time. The government let things go with the flow without getting involved. They wanted to stay out of the way and let others around those people be responsible to help them.

Laissez-faire is the belief that the economy will fix its own problems and the government dose not need to get involved. During the great depression, President Herbert Hoover believed that laissez-faire would work to fix the economy by itself. This made him not so popular with the people. FDR, on the other hand, believed that the government had to help the economy when facing something like the great depression. FDR soon had his plan, “The New Deal,” helping people all over the country, and he was voted to serve as president for four

What does, exactly, ‘laissez-faire’ mean? According to the Oxford dictionary, this French term means literally ‘allow to do’, however, in nineteenth century Britain, this word was used to define a new policy of non-intervention in free market affairs by governments, in order to allow things to follow their own course without any external help, as suggested from some of the most famous economists of the era, as Adam Smith, his followers Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo, or Samuel Smiles.