Laissez Faire Policy in History

[Chris the Chees]

A "basic fact", huh? Funny, I didn't learn that in my economics course. Example?

Indeed it is a basic fact and well recorded in history, Thomas Malthus, Edwin Chadwick and the Benthamites who had considerable power, especially under the premiership of Peel, who was a libertarian and stripped governmental intervention in to buisness. Then investigate the Irish famine, which was in part caused and certainly made infinatly worse by non-intervention capitalist policy.

But if you have any, a single example, of a successful capitalist, using the theoretical utopian model, then please enlighten me, because I have never heard of it. I have however heard of Chilie, which was a complete disaster for libertarian economics.

Non-intervention has, rightly, become a joke, and that is reflected by the pittiful lack of success of libertarian political movements.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No, it was and still is successful in small communitees, especially. To take the most famous examples: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Some of us, on the other hand, like to move beyond horticulture.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Indeed it is a basic fact and well recorded in history,

Perhaps you could provide us with some of these "good recordings"?

Quote by: Chris the Chees Then investigate the Irish famine, which was in part caused and certainly made infinatly worse by non-intervention capitalist policy.

Oh really? My sources say just the opposite. They say that the main political cause of the famine (other than the obvious - the blight) was the Penal Laws, which were enacted against Roman Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine

Under the Penal Laws, Irish Catholics faced the threat of confiscation of property. While the enforcement of the law fluctuated both in terms of period and geography, and by the time of the Famine the laws had in any case been repealed, the cultural effect of the discrimination they embodied helped shape Irish attitudes towards land. As a result of all of this, by the time of the Famine most Irish Catholics were restricted to holding small, frequently impoverished tenancies, lacking what came to be known as the 'Three Fs'; fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale.

So much for your "capitalism".

In case you are unaware, the idea of fuedal land ownership is NOT compatible with libertarian principles.

Quote by: Chris the Chees But if you have any, a single example, of a successful capitalist, using the theoretical utopian model, then please enlighten me, because I have never heard of it.

It is hardly necessary for me to point to a "utopian" model. I need merely point out the fact that the greater the economic freedom in a given society, the more economic success that society is going to have. This is obvious if you actually look around at the world.

Quote by: Chris the Chees I have however heard of Chilie, which was a complete disaster for libertarian economics.

I admit I am not familiar with the situation of Chile. Can you fill us in?

[Chris the Chees]

Some of us, on the other hand, like to move beyond horticulture.

Irrelevant, you made a false claim, one I just disproved.

Perhaps you could provide us with some of these "good recordings"?

I did, I listed several prominent supporters of Laissez Faire policy, you may research them at your leisure. But to speed your research, Edwin Chadwick was a powerful and influential individual who advocated the elimination of all state and social support for citizens and other laissez-faire policy. As such when the Speenhamland System was abolished Chadwick was instrumental in creating one of the most disgusting systems ever invented, one which libertarians should love because it advocates their views to the core. See the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

Oh really? My sources say just the opposite. They say that the main political cause of the famine (other than the obvious - the blight) was the Penal Laws, which were enacted against Roman Catholics.

Well, actually if you bothered to read your own link you would have noticed the following: -

The lack of response to the famine by the United Kingdom is widely regarded as the reason why the food shortage resulted in famine.

It says exactly what I said. The government took a Laissez-Faire approach to the crisis following the fall of Peels government, and the situation turned from bad to disastrous, a fine example of the effects of Laissez Faire capitalist policy at work, one which resulted in the death of around 700,000 - 800,000 people.

Oh and your source says no such thing, and if you understood what the penal laws actually were you would realise that the penal laws dealt with the confiscation of property for those who were made destitute by the famine. Not to mention that the penal laws had largely been repealed by 1845 (rendered irrelevant by the act of union over forty years previously). If you are attempting to suggest that gavelkind was the sole cause of the Irish famine you are grievously mistaken.

So much for your "capitalism". In case you are unaware, the idea of fuedal land ownership is NOT compatible with libertarian principles.

LOL the penal laws had been abolished long before the Irish famine, and for one they were not feudal laws but found their origins post reformation. What was left was the effect on long term land distribution, which was in part a reason why potato crop was so common in Ireland during this period. Note that Wales had also used gavelkind for hundreds of years, yet Wales was not nearly so reliant upon the potato crop, evidence that the penal laws were not nearly as instrumental in the disaster as you suspect. Again, if you had read the article in full, you would have noticed that the article is careful to point out that land holding was only in part the cause of the problem. Note it dedicates a far large section of the article in listing the failures of the British government, which implemented a very much libertarian approach to the problem.

I need merely point out the fact that the greater the economic freedom in a given society, the more economic success that society is going to have. This is obvious if you actually look around at the world.

However note that all these successful societies require and implement protectionist policies and all, universally, implement not a strict libertarian policy but a policy which promotes a mixed economy. If libertarian policy worked, then surely it would be implemented.

I admit I am not familiar with the situation of Chile. Can you fill us in?

A group of US trained libertarian economists implemented the strictest example of Laissez-Faire policy the world has ever seen in Chile during the 70’s and 80’s. The result was massive unemployment, a massive reduction in wages, an increase in the working day including unpaid over time, increase in homelessness and disease. The latter of which was a direct result of the government slashing healthcare funds.

This is dictated from memory, however the internet is littered with articles on the “miracle of Chile”, a term cited by Milton Friedman on the experiment, which he claimed was a success.

One article on it: -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...846390,00.html


I'm not supprised they didn't teach you about this in your economics class. :p

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I'm not supprised they didn't teach you about this in your economics class. :p

No, they don't teach lies in economics class.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

Salvador Allende Gossens, a Marxist physician and member of Chile's Socialist Party, who headed the "Popular Unity" (UP or "Unidad Popular") coalition of the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties, along with dissident Christian Democrats, the Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU), and the Independent Popular Action, won a plurality of votes in a three-way contest. Despite pressure from the government of the United States, the Chilean Congress, keeping with tradition, conducted a runoff vote between the leading candidates, Allende and former president Jorge Alessandri and chose Allende by a vote of 153 to 35. Frei refused to form an alliance with Alessandri to oppose Allende, on the grounds that the Christian Democrats were a workers party and could not make common cause with the oligarchs. Allende's program included advancement of workers' interests; a thoroughgoing implementation of agrarian reform; the reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors; a foreign policy of "international solidarity" and national independence; and a new institutional order (the "people's state" or "poder popular"), including the institution of a unicameral congress. The Popular Unity platform also called for nationalization of foreign (U.S.) ownership of Chile's major copper mines. An economic depression that began in 1967 peaked in 1970, exacerbated by capital flight, plummeting private investment, and withdrawal of bank deposits by those opposed to Allende's socialist program. Production fell and unemployment rose. Allende adopted measures including price freezes, wage increases, and tax reforms, which had the effect of increasing consumer spending and redistributing income downward. Joint public-private public works projects helped reduce unemployment. Much of the banking sector was nationalized. Many enterprises within the copper, coal, iron, nitrate, and steel industries were expropriated, nationalized, or subjected to state intervention. Industrial output increased sharply and unemployment fell during the Allende administration's first year. Other reforms undertaken during the early Allende period included redistribution of millions of hectares of land to landless agricultural workers as part of the agrarian reform program, giving the armed forces an overdue pay increase, and providing free milk to children. The Indian Peoples Development Corporation and the Mapuche Vocational Institute were founded to address the needs of Chile's indigenous population. The nationalization of U.S. and other foreign-owned companies led to increased tensions with the United States. The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization. By 1972, the economic progress of Allende's first year had been reversed and the economy was in crisis.

Yeah, big time capitalists those guys.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Chris the Chees See the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

A New-Deal type program that put Irish poor to work on wasteful government projects supported by taxation? Why yes, I do believe so. What were you saying about laissez-faire?

Your Chadwick was not any more a "Libertarian" than our president Bush is.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Well, actually if you bothered to read your own link you would have noticed the following: - The lack of response to the famine by the United Kingdom is widely regarded as the reason why the food shortage resulted in famine.

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. That text no longer appears in the article. I had to change some other things as well.

Quote by: Chris the Chees The government took a Laissez-Faire approach to the crisis following the fall of Peels government, and the situation turned from bad to disastrous, a fine example of the effects of Laissez Faire capitalist policy at work, one which resulted in the death of around 700,000 - 800,000 people.

In fact, the opposite is true. The famine was caused by a combination of English protectionism, monetary policy, wasteful public works projects, and abusive fuedal control of the Irish population. Study up on the protectionist Corn Laws, which rewarded the aristocracy at the expense of the peasants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

Quote by: Chris the Chees Oh and your source says no such thing, and if you understood what the penal laws actually were you would realise that the penal laws dealt with the confiscation of property for those who were made destitute by the famine. Not to mention that the penal laws had largely been repealed by 1845 (rendered irrelevant by the act of union over forty years previously).

:eek: Laws that were repealed before the famine dealt with property of people made destitute during the famine? What are you smoking, my friend?

Anyhow, the point here is that at the time of the famine, the legacy of these laws was still in effect -- huge chunks of Ireland were owned by absentee English landlords.

Quote by: Chris the Chees If you are attempting to suggest that gavelkind was the sole cause of the Irish famine you are grievously mistaken.

You, my friend, are greviously mistaken in thinking that the government in Ireland in the time was anything resembling "laissez-faire". Don't worry, though, you're not the only one -- Prime Minister Tony Blaire made the same mistake:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=5133

If only the government of the time had really "stood by"...

Quote by: Chris the Chees LOL the penal laws had been abolished long before the Irish famine, and for one they were not feudal laws but found their origins post reformation.

Maybe semi-feudal is a better term; the point is, they supported a landed aristocracy.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Again, if you had read the article in full, you would have noticed that the article is careful to point out that land holding was only in part the cause of the problem. Note it dedicates a far large section of the article in listing the failures of the British government, which implemented a very much libertarian approach to the problem.

Not to worry; the article has been corrected. The use of "laissez-faire" was entirely inappropriate. (Did you write that?)

Quote by: Chris the Chees However note that all these successful societies require and implement protectionist policies and all, universally, implement not a strict libertarian policy but a policy which promotes a mixed economy.

Are you suggesting that there is some ideal "sweet spot" between freedom and statism?
I will conceed this may be true, if you conceed that every currently existing government lies far to the statism side of that equation. I challenge you to give us an example of an increase in liberty not producing a better society.

Quote by: Chris the Chees If libertarian policy worked, then surely it would be implemented.

Now THAT's a circular argument if ever I saw one. Yikes.

Quote by: Chris the Chees the internet is littered with articles on the “miracle of Chile”, a term cited by Milton Friedman on the experiment, which he claimed was a success. I'm not supprised they didn't teach you about this in your economics class. :p

Yeah, Chile is definitely an interesting case. I think the main lesson to be taken from it is that neither economic nor political freedom can be robust on their own -- you need both for a successful society. Chile got the other half of the equation when Pinochet's regime ended and was replaced by a democratic one.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 No, they don't teach lies in economics class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile Yeah, big time capitalists those guys.

I realise that you are not very good at history Tman, but we are talking about Pinochet not Salvador Allende, who was defeated by Pinochet in a coup. I also specifically said in the 70's and 80's, you do realise that Salvador was ousted in late 1973. So, if I am talking about the 80's, it is obvious that I was not referring to Salvador Allende.

A New-Deal type program that put Irish poor to work on wasteful government projects supported by taxation? Why yes, I do believe so. What were you saying about laissez-faire?

Actually, the system was to put poor people in a place worse than prison, with a diet which they could, but only just, survive on. Poverty and destitution was seen as the product of lazy and inefficient people. This was designed to punish the lazy by forcing them to return to the work force. As opposed to cushioning peoples fall, they punished them for it. It certainly was a big step from the previous Speenhamland which did actually encourage people not to work. This policy did the exact opposite. The Benthamites, big supporters of Smith, Ricardo, etc staunch fans of the Laissez Faire Policy loved it... I wonder why.

Your Chadwick was not any more a "Libertarian" than our president Bush is.

Do you actually have any idea what the ideas of Chadwick were? He was a Benthamite, and Benthamites believe in the most happiness for the most people. Chadwick believed that this would be fulfilled if people were employed in a prosperous unrestricted economy and punishing people to prevent them from being lazy was all part of that.

That text no longer appears in the article. I had to change some other things as well.

You are telling me you just vandalised a wiki article, because it states facts which you disagree with? That is a pathetic thing to do, especially, when it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

In fact, the opposite is true. The famine was caused by a combination of English protectionism, monetary policy, wasteful public works projects, and abusive fuedal control of the Irish population.

The Corn laws had nothing to do with the Irish famine, and that didn't cause the famine, not sending any food to Ireland caused the famine. Initially under Peel the government did make steps to prevent a potato bight becoming a famine, but when he was removed from office the government took a position stating that the situation if left alone (laissez faire policy to the core) would resolve its self.

The fact that you reference the Corn Las further proves how little you understand the politics or the economics of the period. The Cornlaws was a manufactured issue, in that it held very little weight, other than political weight. In terms of Ireland, it was simply an excuse to repeal them, an aim which Peel had been trying to achieve for years. Just as he slashed duty on numerous products. The Cornlaws did not actually have any effect on Ireland, because in Ireland that reliance on Wheat, Maize, etc was nonexistent. They were reliant upon the potato crop, not the products which fell under the Corn laws. Peel repealed the Corn Laws not because of the Irish famine, but because that was his economic policy and always had been.

The most notable act of Peel's ministry, however, was the one that brought it down. This time Peel moved against the landholders by repealing the Corn Laws, which supported agricultural revenues by restricting grain imports. This radical break with Tory protectionism was triggered by the appalling Irish potato famine, though some modern historians have argued that the decision had already been made, the famine merely being a convenient time to implement it.

At first sceptical of the extent of the problem, Peel reacted slowly. As realisation dawned however, he hoped that ending the Corn Laws would free up more food for the Irish. Though he knew repealing the laws would mean the end of his ministry, Peel decided to do so out of humanity. Alternatively, many historians believe that Peel merely used the Irish Famine as an excuse to repeal the Corn Laws, having been an intellectual covert to free trade since the 1820s. Blake points out that if Peel was convinced that total repeal was necessary to stave of the famine, he should have enacted a bill that brought about immediate temporary repeal, not permanent repeal over a three year period of gradual tapering of duties. His own party failed to support the bill, but it passed with Whig and Radical support on 29 June 1846. A following bill was defeated as a direct consequence, however, and Peel resigned. Unfortunately, repeal did little to alleviate the suffering, but in the end Peel was willing to sacrifice himself in an attempt to help.

As a historiographical aside in reference to the Repeal of the Corn Laws, Peel did make some moves to subsidise the purchase of food for the Irish, however this was small and had very little effect. To criticise Peel for acting too late in repealing the Corn Laws or for not giving enough subsidies to the Irish, shows a gross misunderstanding of the historical context. In the age of laissez-faire taxes were small and subsidies almost non-existent. That subsidies were actually given was very much out of character for the political times. Secondly the repeal of the Corn Laws was more a political action than a humanitarian one. Peel's support for free trade could already be seen in his 1842 and 1845 budgets, it can be argued that the repeal of the Corn Laws was the next logical step towards a free market economy. The repeal of the Corn Laws had little effect on the situation in Ireland.

The historian Boyd Hilton argues convincingly that Peel knew from 1844 that he was going to be deposed as Conservative leader, many of his MPs had taken to voting against him. Hilton's hypothesis is that Peel who had led a very Liberal ministry wished to be deposed on a Liberal issue so that he might later lead a Peelite/Whig alliance.

He did retain a hard core of supporters however, known as Peelites, and at one point in 1849 was actively courted by the Whig/Radical coalition. He continued to stand on his conservative principles, however, and refused. Nevertheless, he was influential on several important issues, including the furtherance of British free trade with the repeal of the Navigation Acts.

Peel was thrown from his horse while riding up Constitution Hill in London on 29 June 1850, and died three days later on July 2 at the age of 62. His Peelite followers, led by Lord Aberdeen and William Gladstone, went on to fuse with the Whigs as the Liberal Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peel

Peels Speech on the Corn Laws in 1841, several years before the Potato Blight: -

I now approach the more important and exciting question of the Corn-laws. In order that I may make no mistake, allow me to refer to the expressions which I made use of on this point before the dissolution. I said, that on consideration I had formed an opinion, which intervening consideration has not induced me to alter, that the principle of a graduated scale was preferable to that of a fixed and irrevocable duty; but I said then, and I say now, in doing so I repeat the language which I held in 1839, that I will not bind myself to the details of the existing law, but will reserve to myself the unfettered discretion of considering and amending that law. I hold the same language now; but if you ask me whether I bind myself to the maintenance of the existing law in its details, or if you say that that is the condition in which the agricultural interest give me their support, I say that on that condition I will not accept their support.... If I could bring myself to think - if I could believe that an alteration of the Corn-laws would preclude the risk of such distress - if I thought it would be an effectual remedy, in all cases, against such instances of lamentable suffering as that which have been described, I would say at once to the agricultural interest, 'It is for your advantage rather to submit to any reduction of price, than, if an alteration of the Corn-laws would really be the cure for these sufferings, to compel their continuance.' I should say, that it would be for the interest, not of the community in general, but especially of the agriculturists themselves, if, by any sacrifice of theirs, they could prevent the existence of such distress. If any sacrifice of theirs could prevent their being the real cause of the distress - could prevent the continuance of it - could offer a guarantee against the recurrence of it, I would earnestly advise a relaxation, an alteration, nay, if necessary, a repeal of the Corn-laws. But it is because I cannot convince my mind that the Corn-laws are at the bottom of this distress, or that the repeal of them, or the alteration of their principle, would be its cure, that I am induced to continue my maintenance of them....

Hansard, LIX.,413-29.

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/cornlaws/peelcls.htm

As you can see, repeal of the Cornlaws was never an issue, and the only reason why it has been linked to Ireland is because Peel needed an excuse to repeal it and had been looking to repeal it for a long time. Peel had been following and advocating such policy
since the 20's.

But what the famine was actually caused by was Laissez Faire policy following the fall of Peels government. The British government let it happen.

[Chris the Chees]

Part 2: -

Laws that were repealed before the famine dealt with property of people made destitute during the famine? What are you smoking, my friend?

What are you smoking? You are the one who suggested that the penal laws actually had a big direct effect on the Irish famine, in anything other than land distrobution. I simply was explaining to you what the penal laws actually were.

Anyhow, the point here is that at the time of the famine, the legacy of these laws was still in effect -- huge chunks of Ireland were owned by absentee English landlords.

That’s the whole point, they wanted laissez faire policy, because policy to help the Irish would cut into their profits. That is what the Whig government made sure they got. Individualism at its best.

You, my friend, are greviously mistaken in thinking that the government in Ireland in the time was anything resembling "laissez-faire".

Answer the question. As for your question, I have already explained to you why it was a laissez faire policy.

Maybe semi-feudal is a better term; the point is, they supported a landed aristocracy.

So did Laissez Faire policy during this period. And no, not semi-feudal.

Not to worry; the article has been corrected. The use of "laissez-faire" was entirely inappropriate.

What a pathetic thing to do, you cited an article, that correctly proved you wrong, so you edit the article, thus making it now incomplete.

(Did you write that?)

No, I did not. But it is the view of most professional historians, one which you removed because it proves you wrong.

Are you suggesting that there is some ideal "sweet spot" between freedom and statism?

There is no such thing as a perfect system.

I challenge you to give us an example of an increase in liberty not producing a better society.

I already have, Chile.

Now THAT's a circular argument if ever I saw one.

One which you have no answer to, because its is true. Every time we see a government run of the principals of laissez faire policy, or even close to it, the result is political or economic disaster... usually both.

Yeah, Chile is definitely an interesting case. I think the main lesson to be taken from it is that neither economic nor political freedom can be robust on their own -- you need both for a successful society.

Or more accurately, the lesson is that libertarian policy does not work, period.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Actually, the system was to put poor people in a place worse than prison, with a diet which they could, but only just, survive on. Poverty and destitution was seen as the product of lazy and inefficient people.

An absurd conclusion, since the system was hardly laissez-faire.

Quote by: Chris the Chees This was designed to punish the lazy by forcing them to return to the work force.

There's nothing libertarian about "punishing the lazy". The idea of a government taking actions to punish people is an inherently statist philosophy. Also, their plan was inherently flawed because at the same time, other government policies were systematically squelching the work force.

Quote by: Chris the Chees It certainly was a big step from the previous Speenhamland which did actually encourage people not to work. This policy did the exact opposite.

Putting people to work on government projects is not "the opposite".

Quote by: Chris the Chees The Benthamites, big supporters of Smith, Ricardo, etc staunch fans of the Laissez Faire Policy loved it... I wonder why.

Because, apparently, they didn't understand what laissez-faire means. The Poor Law system was in no way, shape or form a free-market policy.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Do you actually have any idea what the ideas of Chadwick were? He was a Benthamite, and Benthamites believe in the most happiness for the most people. Chadwick believed that this would be fulfilled if people were employed in a prosperous unrestricted economy and punishing people to prevent them from being lazy was all part of that.

Then he wasn't a libertarian. Libertarians hold that it is NOT the role of the government to reward or punish people for their economic actions.

Quote by: Chris the Chees You are telling me you just vandalised a wiki article, because it states facts which you disagree with?

No, I am telling you that I corrected a Wiki article that was both incorrect and biased.

Quote by: Chris the Chees The Corn laws had nothing to do with the Irish famine, and that didn't cause the famine,

A protectionist law that drastically increased the price of food in Ireland had nothing to do with the famine. Plese share your logic with us.

Quote by: Chris the Chees not sending any food to Ireland caused the famine.

Not sending food caused the famine? Hoo boy. Isn't that a bit like saying "The USA not invading and occupying Germany prior to 1939 caused the Holocaust"?

You have a very interesting way of looking at things... :eek:

Quote by: Chris the Chees Initially under Peel the government did make steps to prevent a potato bight becoming a famine, but when he was removed from office the government took a position stating that the situation if left alone (laissez faire policy to the core) would resolve its self.

The government under Russell? I don't know what they "stated", as I wasn't alive at the time. I do, however, know what they did. And what they did was most certainly not a "laissez-faire policy".

Quote by: Chris the Chees The fact that you reference the Corn Las further proves how little you understand the politics or the economics of the period. The Cornlaws was a manufactured issue, in that it held very little weight, other than political weight.

You mean weight with the aristocracy in England. Well, naturally. Why would they care about a bunch of starving peasants in Ireland?

You are obviously choosing to ignore economic consequences by stating that the Corn Laws had "nothing to do" with the famine, when in fact they were a major cause of it.

Quote by: Chris the Chees In terms of Ireland, it was simply an excuse to repeal them, an aim which Peel had been trying to achieve for years.

Yes, I am aware of that. That fact alone reveals nothing about the effect this law was having on the Irish peasants.

Quote by: Chris the Chees The Cornlaws did not actually have any effect on Ireland, because in Ireland that reliance on Wheat, Maize, etc was nonexistent. They were reliant upon the potato crop, not the products which fell under the Corn laws.

And when the potato crop was destroyed, what were they going to eat? How can you possibly say that these laws had "no effect"?

Quote by: Chris the Chees Peel repealed the Corn Laws not because of the Irish famine, but because that was his economic policy and always had been.

That's not the point. Politicians always have been, and always will be, self-serving. Peel was, however, correct that the repeal of the law could avert the famine.

Quote by: Chris the Chees The repeal of the Corn Laws had little effect on the situation in Ireland.

By the time the Corn Laws were fully repealed, most of the damage had already been done.

Quote by: Chris the Chees The British government let it happen.

No, the British government made it happen, in the ways I've described.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Chris the Chees That’s the whole point, they wanted laissez faire policy, because policy to help the Irish would cut into their profits. That is what the Whig government made sure they got. Individualism at its best.

Your identification of the Irish landlord system as "lassez-faire" is absurd.

Quote by: Chris the Chees As for your question, I have already explained to you why it was a laissez faire policy.

And I have already explained to you why it was not.

Quote by: Chris the Chees So did Laissez Faire policy during this period.

That's a contradiction. Laissez-faire is not compatible with a landed aristocracy.

Quote by: Chris the Chees And no, not semi-feudal.

Yes, fuedal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure

Tell me how that doesn't fit the situation in Ireland.

Quote by: Chris the Chees What a pathetic thing to do, you cited an article, that correctly proved you wrong, so you edit the article, thus making it now incomplete.

The article as it stood didn't "proove" anything, and you know it. "Incomplete"? Oh brother. If you think something is missing, why dont you add it?

Quote by: Chris the Chees No, I did not. But it is the view of most professional historians

That's quite a claim. You are suggesting that most professional historians are biased and incorrect? Hmmm....

Quote by: Chris the Chees I already have, Chile.

Chile most certainly does NOT represent an increase in liberty. There was a great deal of economic freedom, yes, but it was accompanied by a huge amount of political repression and state terror.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Every time we see a government run of the principals of laissez faire policy, or even close to it, the result is political or economic disaster... usually both.

I'm sure you will stick by this conclusion, because your idea of what constitutes laissez-faire is absurd.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Or more accurately, the lesson is that libertarian policy does not work, period.

Since Pinochet was not a libertarian and did not enact libertarian policy, that most certainly is NOT a conclusion we can draw.

More to the point, how do you explain the fact that Chile is now the most successful economy in South America?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman No, I am telling you that I corrected a Wiki article that was both incorrect and biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

# (cur) (last) 06:34, 2 May 2006 207.200.116.133 (→Deathtolls) # (cur) (last) 05:38, 2 May 2006 144.134.48.240 (→In the United Kingdom) # (cur) (last) 12:59, 1 May 2006 Atlant (Revert PoV.) # (cur) (last) 12:58, 1 May 2006 Christopher Smith # (cur) (last) 09:03, 1 May 2006 Salvor Hardin m (→Response of United Kingdom Government) # (cur) (last) 08:40, 1 May 2006 Salvor Hardin m (→Response of United Kingdom Government) # (cur) (last) 08:40, 1 May 2006 Salvor Hardin (→Response of United Kingdom Government) # (cur) (last) 08:22, 1 May 2006 Salvor Hardin m (→Response of United Kingdom Government) # (cur) (last) 06:08, 1 May 2006 Salvor Hardin m (→Response of United Kingdom Government) # (cur) (last) 17:28, 28 April 2006 Atlant (Revert just a wee bit farther...) # (cur) (last) 17:15, 28 April 2006 86.137.26.123 (I FOUND SOME VANDALISM AND I TOOK IT OUT! HURRAY FOR ME!) # (cur) (last) 17:13, 28 April 2006 Tawkerbot2 m (BOT - rv 86.137.26.123 (talk) to last version by 82.3.84.155) # (cur) (last) 17:12, 28 April 2006 86.137.26.123 # (cur) (last) 16:55, 28 April 2006 82.3.84.155

I'm not sure who is who.

But notice the bolded part?


How sick is wikipedia these days? People actually program bots to sweep through articles and revert
them whenever someone makes a change.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 How sick is wikipedia these days? People actually program bots to sweep through articles and revert them whenever someone makes a change.

Weird. I better keep an eye on my articles...

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 How sick is wikipedia these days? People actually program bots to sweep through articles and revert them whenever someone makes a change.

Upon closer inspection, and looking at a few other articles, I learned the true nature of that Bot. It sweeps through and looks for recent entries made by unregistered users that are unformatted or contain foul langauge. Basically, it's a vandalism clean-up bot. I don't know how it works exactly, but it works brilliantly.

Also, I was pleased to note that someone added back in that sentence that I took took out -- the one that was factually incorrect / POV -- and it had already been removed by someone else.

I'm enjoying this Wikipedia thing.

[tman_ndsu08]

Ah, ok.

Which one are you?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Ah, ok. Which one are you?

I'm Salvor Hardin. Unfortunately, Hari Seldon was already taken...

[SteveA]

Free markets and capitalism predate governments and socialism.

If you want to say people used to experience famines under these conditions, that's simply because they didn't have the technology we have now. Yet you can find modern countries that should have the ability to feed people stifled by governments and socialism, even with modern technology to compensate. How can it be that people claim it often takes two parents to support a child or two now, whereas people left to their own devices hundreds of year ago could afford 10 or more and without modern agricultural technology and 59 cent burritos?

People used to experience famines in the past, and now they experience socialism and costly beaurocracies. Instead of the vikings raiding a costal town 1000 years ago, they set up shop and "farm" the locals for the loot inste