As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.
However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?
What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.
To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?
Answer:
San Francisco de los Tejas failed because of drought, disease, Native American resistance, and lack of funding and supplies from Spain. The missions along the Rio Grande flourished because they were very close to New Spain and they had the waters of the Rio Grande to use to grow crops. Geographical location is very important to a mission’s settlement because proximity to New Spain made getting supplies easier and quicker. The water source of the river fostered crops and travel which allowed for trade. Missions along the river could stand on their own without a great deal of financial aid from the Spanish government so Spain was less willing to shut them down.
Explanation:
I did it on Edge and got it right! I hope you do too! (;
Answer:
<h3>The answer is true.</h3>
Explanation:
The U.S Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the Constitution to protect the rights of citizens from state governments through a process called incorporation doctrine.
It protected the citizens from the actions of the states by making the Bills of Rights applicable to every citizen through the Due Process clause without any state jurisprudence and interference.
The rights contained in the first ten amendments of the Constitution were made indispensable and constitutionally incorporated into state legislatures and court of every state by 20th century.
Peter the Great was the first ruler to try and westernize Russia.
