Well, I think you are taking the idea of laissez-faire too far, almost to the point of setting up a straw man. In reality, laissez-faire doesn't mean you give up all ideas of regulation so that business rules the country, it doesn't mean that you give up anti-monopoly regulations. It means that you prevent business from controlling the government while you prevent the government from ruining business.
It's kinda hard to understand exactly what it is you are saying, no offense, but I also think that you are contradicting yourself in that you are against monopolies (or for them?) and against laissez-faire, but that maybe because you have a distorted view of what laissez-faire truly is.
Yes, I know I am breaking the "me neither", just give me break.
History is not black and white, I have no standpoint. I give facts and let you interrupt them. If you take a AP class in history, you will learn it is best to give both sides. L-F can work, and it cannot work, it depends on when it works. It will fail, then it wont. And yes, I contradict myself, please try to grasp the complexity of my argument.
Protective Tariffs could be considered a part of economic-government bond, while it can also not be. Depending on the time and what is needed this can change. This is just like regulation.
And your point is so moot: Regulation and Laissez-faire is possible, but it is not L-F, since L-F is French for "Let Be." Of course, over the years, the regulations have gotten stricter, and looser. Look up the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Interstate Commerce Commission Act. These were both passed to regulate business, and ended up being useless until they were given teeth.
Roosevelt and Taft and Wilson and FDR and Reagen each did there own thing to the governments policy. And plus, we have an income tax, this isn't L-F, is it?
