Reverse “Laissez Faire”

Most of us will know the meaning of ‘laissez faire’. It means ‘let it happen’. In economics, it means let industry (of all sorts) conduct its business with the least possible interference by Gov. Of course, there were many iniquities which resulted from LF, such as children being expected to work long hours in factories. My mother started work at the age of 14, part-time, in the cotton industry. The cliche of child chimney sweeps is well known. I have no doubt that children are still working in most third world countries.

It took many, many years for such work to be outlawed, and it still isn’t totally today. 13 year olds can have a paper-round. “If you are 13 years or older and are interested in doing a paper round in Essex: then please fill in the form below or call us on…”

I suggest that LF also applies the other way round.

We all know (I suppose) that all EU Directives are written in stone. Does anyone know of a EU Directive which has been reversed? Or even changed in any way? What seems to happen is that New Directives build upon old ones and create even more restrictions of one sort or another.

The UK will break free from the EU in due course, but does anyone expect EU Directives to be reversed or EU laws repealed? I think that almost all Brexiteers expect that to be so, but I shall be surprised it that happens. It would be too much like hard work for politicians, for a start, and there would be no reward in the sense of ‘doing something’. Plus, ‘Remainers’ would create merry-hell. So we can expect little to change as far as regulations are concerned. Too much trouble, whether such reversals are worthy or not.

That is what I mean by ‘Reverse Laissez Faire’. ‘Laissez Faire’ because reversing Directives is too much trouble and produces no plaudits.

But what is the use of Brexit if EU Directives are allowed to stand? ‘Reverse Laissez Faire’ must be tackled as soon as possible. The planning to reverse EU Directives must start NOW.

It would be nice if our Gov started NOW to reverse Tobacco Control influence, but don’t hold your breath. The FCTC is not only written in stone, it is written in granite. The only light (and it is a small light) at the end of the tunnel, is that the USA has not ratified the FCTC. Perhaps the USA saw the FCTC as not sufficiently prohibitionist. There again, since the UN relies ABSOLUTELY upon USA contributions for revenue, it may well be that the USA regards itself as some sort of King – not subject to the laws which The King enacts.

It is an amusing idea that Russia and China could, if they wished, swamp USA contributions to the UN and take over. Maybe then, the USA would ratify the FCTC.

I may be wrong. It is quite possible that Boris Johnson (Foreign Sec) and David Davies (Chief Negotiator of Brexit) have already mapped out a plan to restore our fishery rights around our shores, and have, even now, a couple of rowing boats ready to enforce exclusion of EU fishing boats. Perhaps ‘rowing boats’ is a bit exaggerated. Perhaps megaphones could be attached to off-shore windmills.

What is quite likely is that every type of Zealot will shout even louder, and our Gov will cave in again and again. Why else did Cameron agree to PP? He did not approve initially, but capitulated eventually. Now, he is smoking again (if he ever actually ‘quitted’).

If he did quit, then I can bet a pound to a penny that his first drag on a cig was WONDERFUL. I experienced exactly that after ‘quitting’ for 12 months. That first drag, after 12 months of abstinence, was WONDERFUL BEYOND COMPARE. Yes, it made me a bit dizzy momentarily, but there was an overwhelming feeling of well-being.

I think that most of us go through our days with the idea of ‘duty’ in mind. There are things that we MUST do. It is our duty. We must work and earn. Most of us make a modest earning, enough to live on, but some make prodigious earnings, such as Rockefeller, Bloomberg, Gates, etc. Did they enjoy making their billions? Or were they driven? When they stopped needing that pleasure, did they achieve pleasure by using their billions to make other people behave like them? To stop enjoying  the pleasures of the flesh?

It is perhaps good news that, with some determination, ‘Reverse Laissez Faire’ can be easily overcome. Control of our fisheries would be an easy start. Our fishing industry would be revitalised.

Finally, I do not see the EU as as a devil, although it has become so. It could have been worthy, had not Zealots tried to push amalgamation too quickly. Those Zealots are neo-communists. They want totalitarian control. They DO NOT WANT competition. They LIKE uniformity. And who can blame them? WE gave them permission to do so decades ago.

A gradual amalgamation of European States to form a sort of European USA was possible, but should not have been rushed. Encouragement, in the form of philosophical reasoning, is great, but it must include a very long period of time to avoid antagonisms. The USA is not by any means perfect, even after centuries of amalgamation. It remains to be seen whether or not the ‘fake’ economies of New York could survive a serious ‘disease’. I have no doubt that ‘Middle America’ could.

2 Responses to “Reverse “Laissez Faire””

  1. Samuel Says:

    You have the definition of “laissez faire” correct but not the application. There have been woefully few times in British history when the poorest or “common” people weren’t used as slaves by the few on top. And why not? The few were in control of the government and wrote (and enforced) the “laws” which exclusively benefited them.
    The child labor you mention was accompanied by debtor’s prisons because debts owed could not be discharged by any means but the debtor could be thrown onto the State for at least the costs of incarceration. Laborers, even after the (grudging) end of feudalism, were little better than freedmen in the US following the “Civil” war. Children were forced into work either by their impoverished parents or by the State itself which regularly rounded up any “idle” persons adult or child and forced them to work in the factories or sent them of as slaves in the colonies.
    All this was the evil and pernicious force of government being applied to boost the profits of business owners (and the tax collections of crony government) at the expense of everyone else.
    For a few decades this sort of thing was done away with in the US and the US Citizens became the freest and richest people on the planet. This sort of thing cannot be endured by the “better sort” so they have worked tirelessly, over the generations, to reduce “Americans” to the same level of serfdom that their ancestors shook off two hundred years ago.
    The evil in society is always found in government.

    • junican Says:

      WOW! That is some condemnation!
      Has anyone ever considered that the Africans who were transported to America were quite happy to do so? We know nothing about how those Africans lived. Did they have money, or did they survive day by day on what they could grub? If a person was offered security, food, clothing and shelter in return for work, would not that person readily agree, if the alternative was grubbing about?
      In the Roman Empire, slaves were more like servants. In return for their work, they were fed and clothed. Who needs money if you have food and shelter? Of course, there were cruel practices, but not as much as we envisage. What is the use of a decrepit, ill-fed, weak servant?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: