Editing Laissez-faire (section)

=== United States ===
{{main|Liberalism in the United States}}
{{Liberalism US}}
Frank Bourgin's study of the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] and subsequent decades argues that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]].<ref name=bourgin>{{cite book|first=Frank|last=Bourgin|title=The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic|isbn=978-0-06-097296-7|year=1989|publisher=George Braziller Inc.|location=New York}}{{page needed|date=March 2022}}</ref> The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the [[Articles of Confederation]]. The goal was to ensure that dearly-won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce was seen as an essential means of [[Taxing and Spending Clause|promoting the general welfare]] and making the [[economy of the United States]] strong enough for them to determine their own destiny. Others view Bourgin's study, written in the 1940s and not published until 1989, as an over-interpretation of the evidence, intended originally to defend the [[New Deal]] and later to counter [[Ronald Reagan]]'s economic policies.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bourgin|first=Frank|url=https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/frank-bourgin/the-great-challenge-the-myth-of-laissez-faire-i/|title=The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-faire in the Early Republic|publisher=Kirkusreviews.com|date=1 June 1989|access-date=30 July 2013|archive-date=21 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055716/https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/frank-bourgin/the-great-challenge-the-myth-of-laissez-faire-i/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that in the 19th century [[liberalism in the United States]] had distinctive characteristics and that "at the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of ''laissez-faire''. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, ''laissez-faire'' did not mean "no government intervention" at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers". Notable examples of government intervention in the period prior to the [[American Civil War]] include the establishment of the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|Patent Office]] in 1802; the establishment of the Office of Standard Weights and Measures in 1830; the creation of the Survey of the Coast (later renamed the United States Coast Survey and then the [[United States Coast and Geodetic Survey]]) in 1807 and other measures to improve river and harbor navigation; the various [[United States Army|Army]] expeditions to the west, beginning with [[Lewis and Clark Expedition|Lewis and Clark]]'s [[Corps of Discovery]] in 1804 and continuing into the 1870s, almost always under the direction of an officer from the Army [[Corps of Topographical Engineers]] and which provided crucial information for the overland pioneers that followed; the assignment of Army Engineer officers to assist or direct the surveying and construction of the early railroads and canals; and the establishment of the [[First Bank of the United States]] and [[Second Bank of the United States]] as well as various protectionist measures (e.g. the [[Tariff of Abominations|tariff of 1828]]). Several of these proposals met with serious opposition and required a great deal of horse-trading to be enacted into law. For instance, the First National Bank would not have reached the desk of President [[George Washington]] in the absence of an agreement that was reached between [[Alexander Hamilton]] and several Southern members of Congress to locate the capitol in the [[District of Columbia]]. In contrast to Hamilton and the [[Federalist Party|Federalists]] was [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]]'s opposing political party, the [[Democratic-Republican Party|Democratic-Republicans]].

Most of the early opponents of ''laissez-faire'' capitalism in the United States subscribed to the [[American School (economics)|American School]]. This school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Hamilton, who proposed the creation of a [[First Bank of the United States|government-sponsored bank]] and increased tariffs to favor Northern industrial interests. Following Hamilton's death, the more abiding [[Protectionism|protectionist]] influence in the antebellum period came from [[Henry Clay]] and his [[American System (economic plan)|American System]]. In the early 19th century, "it is quite clear that the ''laissez-faire'' label is an inappropriate one" to apply to the relationship between the United States government and industry.<ref name="Prince Taylor">{{cite journal|last1=Prince|first1=Carl E.|last2=Taylor|first2=Seth|year=1982|title=Daniel Webster, the Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's Role in the Industrializing Process, 1815–1830|journal=Journal of the Early Republic|volume=2|issue=3|pages=283–299|jstor=3122975|doi=10.2307/3122975 }}</ref> In the mid-19th century, the United States followed the [[Whig Party (United States)|Whig]] tradition of [[economic nationalism]], which included increased state regulation and [[Macroeconomics|macroeconomic]] development of infrastructure.<ref name=guelzo>{{cite book|first=Allen C.|last=Guelzo|title=Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President|isbn=978-0-8028-3872-8|year=1999|url=https://archive.org/details/abrahamlincolnre00guel|publisher=W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co|location=Grand Rapids}}{{page needed|date=March 2022}}</ref> [[Public works]] such as the provision and regulation transportation such as railroads took effect. The [[Pacific Railway Acts]] provided the development of the [[First transcontinental railroad]].<ref name="guelzo"/><ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-05-10|title=From Sea to Shining Sea: The Heroes and Villains of the First Transcontinental Railroad|url=https://theobjectivestandard.com/2019/05/from-sea-to-shining-sea-the-heroes-and-villains-of-the-first-transcontinental-railroad/|access-date=2021-04-29|website=The Objective Standard|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-04-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210429210027/https://theobjectivestandard.com/2019/05/from-sea-to-shining-sea-the-heroes-and-villains-of-the-first-transcontinental-railroad/|url-status=live |last1=White |first1=Tim }}</ref> To help pay for its war effort in the Civil War, the [[Federal government of the United States|United States government]] imposed its first personal [[income tax]] on 5 August 1861 as part of the [[Revenue Act of 1861]] (3% of all incomes over US$800; rescinded in 1872).

Following the Civil War, the movement towards a [[mixed economy]] accelerated. Protectionism increased with the [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 and the [[Dingley Tariff]] of 1897. [[Government regulation]] of the economy expanded with the enactment of the [[Interstate Commerce Act of 1887]] and the [[Sherman Anti-trust Act]]. The [[Progressive Era]] saw the enactment of more controls on the economy as evidenced by the [[Woodrow Wilson]] administration's [[The New Freedom|New Freedom]] program. Following [[World War I]] and the [[Great Depression]], the United States turned to a mixed economy which combined [[free enterprise]] with a [[Progressive tax|progressive income tax]] and in which from time to time the government stepped in to support and protect American industry from competition from overseas. For example, in the 1980s the government sought to protect the automobile industry by "voluntary" export restrictions from Japan.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Robert W. Crandall|year=1987|title=The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection for Autos and Steel|journal=Brookings Papers on Economic Activity|volume=1987|issue=1|pages=271–288|doi=10.2307/2534518|jstor=2534518|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1987/01/1987a_bpea_crandall.pdf|access-date=2019-09-24|archive-date=2019-10-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001135513/https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1987/01/1987a_bpea_crandall.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1986, Pietro S. Nivola wrote: "By and large, the comparative strength of the dollar against major foreign currencies has reflected high U.S. interest rates driven by huge federal budget deficits. Hence, the source of much of the current deterioration of trade is not the general state of the economy, but rather the government's mix of fiscal and monetary policies – that is, the problematic juxtaposition of bold tax reductions, relatively tight monetary targets, generous military outlays, and only modest cuts in major entitlement programs. Put simply, the roots of the trade problem and of the resurgent protectionism it has fomented are fundamentally political as well as economic".<ref>{{cite journal|author=Pietro S. Nivola|year=1986|title=The New Protectionism: U.S. Trade Policy in Historical Perspective|journal=[[Political Science Quarterly]]|volume=101|issue=4|pages=577–600|doi=10.2307/2150795|jstor=2150795}}</ref>

A more recent advocate of total ''laissez-faire'' has been [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] [[Ayn Rand]], who described it as "the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State".<ref>Rand, Ayn ''Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,'' Ch. 7, New American Library, Signet, 1967.</ref> Rand's political philosophy emphasized [[individual rights]] (including [[Private property|property rights]])<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=350–352}}.</ref> and she considered ''laissez-faire'' capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.<ref name="rights">{{harvnb|Gotthelf|2000|pp=91–92}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=379–380}}.</ref> She opposed [[statism]], which she understood to include [[theocracy]], [[absolute monarchy]], [[Nazism]], [[fascism]], [[communism]], [[socialism]] and dictatorship.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=369}}.</ref> Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=367}}.</ref> Although her political views are often classified as [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] or [[Libertarianism in the United States|libertarian]], she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.<ref>{{harvnb|Burns|2009|pp=174–177, 209, 230–231}}; {{harvnb|Den Uyl|Rasmussen|1986|pp=225–226}}; {{harvnb|Doherty|2007|pp=189–190}}; {{harvnb|Branden|1986|p=252}}.</ref> She denounced [[libertarianism]], which she associated with [[anarchism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|pp=266–267}}; {{harvnb|Burns|2009|pp=268–269}}.</ref> She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in [[subjectivism]] that could only lead to collectivism in practice.<ref>{{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|pp=280–281}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=371–372}}; {{harvnb|Merrill|1991|p=139}}.</ref>