Posted on 04/21/2009 8:06:32 AM PDT by AreaMan
“The later historians of the New Deal and the Great Society sneered that the idea of ‘laissez faire’ was an abdication of governmental responsibility, but this was propaganda. The best translation of the term is the activist ‘let us do,’ not the passive ‘let us be,’”
I’m at a loss as to what’s the difference. Is there more government intervention in the latter than the former? If so, I prefer the New Deal’s version.
The real propaganda is the idea that we ever had real laissez faire. We certainly haven’t had it since the adoption of the Constitution. From what I’ve heard, commerce wasn’t smooth under the Articles, either.
Just when was this golden era of free markets, and do I have to walk through a looking glass to get back?
Interesting overview of the development of our current nanny-state. Kudos to the author for showing the evolution of American government but I am always sadly ammused at people who suggest a constitutional convention as a solution for our current problems. A constitutional convention would simply open up our foundational law to the same special interest groups who have destroyed the republic. If our ideas cannot win in the legislative systems we have now what makes conservatives belive that they would win in a constitutional convention?
Enjoyed the read
Our republic is well grounded on the Constitution. The fact that is is perpetually ignored by far too many of our self-serving politicians will make reclaiming our nation and our liberties an absolute necessity at some point in time. As those in possession of increasingly “absolute” authority are unlikely to give it up without a struggle, a second American revolution will be required. Should actual Americans allow the left and its monied backers to overturn what remains of our founding documents, the nation will be finished. There will be no “Fourth Republic”, only a dictatorship.
“The best translation of the term is the activist ‘let us do,’ not the passive ‘let us be,’”
Now that I read the paragraph again, I see perhaps the article meant that “let us do” was a call for government intervention, and hence my ramblings are unecessary.
I disagree. Wasn’t the popularization of the phrase first to be found in the 18th century French Physiocrat school? And didn’t it mean “hands off”? If you want to say America wasn’t hands off during the guilded age, don’t bastardize the term laissez faire. Find a new term.
“If our ideas cannot win in the legislative systems we have now what makes conservatives belive that they would win in a constitutional convention?”
Maybe we could do it like Hamilton and Madison did and throw out the old system without regard to its processes. Or does that only work when you’re expanding the central government?
"See what happens when you don't have any regulations! We need more gov. regulation not less!"
The fact is that there are MANY laws and regulations on the books already that were ignored (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) and the regulations that were applied caused much of the problems in the mortgage markets.
The colonies had not done well in defending themselves. A recent estimate suggested that 25% of the population ended up dead or seriously injured, with a very substantial percentage of housing and places of business burned to the ground.
Anyway, by the time you get to 1776 New Englanders had had a full century of Crown administration with semi-autonomous homerule in the former colonial areas. BTW, one of those colonies, Plymouth, had been incorporated into Massachusetts. Long Island had a questionable existence as part of New England since it's more settled parts were a rowboat away from New York. New York and New England created a "buffer state" called Vermont to better delineate their competing borders. That "state" was quite primitive and there's a good question of whether it ran itself, or was run by fur traders, or was simply administered by New England on an "as necessary" basis (obviously questions that can be asked right down to the present time).
New Englanders got a jump on Southerners in settleing the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes regions after the American Revolution. Their tradition of semi-autonomous rule within the far larger realm of a Crown entity called New England set them up to think of the "new states in the West" as being little different than the autonomous regions of New England.
In short, the New England concept of federalism was much more like that of Canada today than of Southern colonies then ~ which is only logical.
Some of the "new states" in the Ohio Valley did have some serious Southern immigration ~ mostly from Virginia (into Kentucky and Soutern Indiana, Ohio and Illinois) and North Carolina ~ into pretty much the same places. Later on there was serious imigration from South Carolina and Georgia as anti-slavery Southerners fled North to escape what can only be described as "persecution".
All of which is to say that federalism in the United States has been of two minds all along.
“The fact is that there are MANY laws and regulations on the books already that were ignored (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) and the regulations that were applied caused much of the problems in the mortgage markets.”
As a thought experiment, I could imagine a new regulation possibly curtailing the problem. However, as others have pointed out, it wouldn’t have worked in practice because the housing market was doing exactly what the government wanted it to do. Are you telling me a lone SEC official would have stood up to all that.
Plus, the banking/finance industry is, in fact, the most regulated industry in the country. Funny how libs never explain that part. Oh, I forgot, we’re supposed to pretend the Fed doesn’t exist.
“Demosclerosis”, I like it.
“... As Thomas Jefferson said, “Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.”...”
And this is what Obama and the radical left is doing with
this administration, we see it happening, and refuse to
accept it.
Excellent article by the way.
t.
Ping to read later.
It’s been 30+ years since I took it, but my French tells me that “laissez faire” translates better as “let [allow] you [to] do,” or “leave [you] to do.”
“Laissez” is the second person plural (or formal) conjugation of the verb “laisser.” To say, “let [us] do,” one would say “laissons faire.”
bump
Ping for later read
To put it all together you need to read 1- The Constitution, then 2- The Federalist Papers and then 3- The Anti Federalist Papers.
The opinions of
# “Centinel” (Samuel Bryan)
# “Federal Farmer” (Melancton Smith? or Richard Henry Lee?)
# “Brutus” (Robert Yates)
# “John DeWitt” (?)
# “Cato” (George Clinton?)
# “Pennsylvania Minority”
# Patrick Henry speeches
# Melancton Smith speeches
These were Founding Fathers who were against ratification of The Constitution.
It makes more sense when you study both sides.
Ping. Thought-provoking article.
My fault, AreaMan. I was pinging Billthedrill. Good article.
Libertarian ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.