Laissez faire economics is preferable to government regulation and intervention. The goal in a nation's economy is to make the people prosperous along with giving them the highest level of freedom that is possible, and laissez faire accomplishes this. The way it achieves that goal is by allowing the economy to grow without being controlled by the government. This means that taxation must be low, and there must be little attempt by the government to manipulate the market through regulations and market control. In addition, people are in charge of developing their own success and do not depend upon the government to do it through government programs.
My claim is that government intervention puts the government in charge of the nation's wealth, and that is never a good thing for the nation's people. In nations where the government controls the economy, most people have little, and the government is rich. Although the government is supposed to redistribute the wealth it gets back to the people, it never does this. The evidence for this is easy to find. In countries such as the former Soviet Union, for example, the government was supposed to provide for the people, but food and other goods were always rationed and in short supply, and most people had very little.
Laissez faire economics is not preferable to government regulation and intervention. The goal in a nation's economy is to make the people prosperous, and this is best accomplished through government regulation and intervention to control the market. In a government-regulated economy, a fair market exists in which no single business concern or factor can gain an unfair advantage over the rest. Thus, everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, because there is an even playing field where no one can take advantage of other players.
My claim is that government regulation is as necessary to individua
...