Abstract
In academic circles, laissez-faire is perceived as a largely discredited idea. Yet an element of the argument—that only unencumbered markets provide societies with a truly neutral means of allocating resources—has, despite years of critique, remained intact. I argue (a) that this element is conceptually false, (b) that it is so for reasons previous critiques have overlooked, and (c) that this oversight explains why laissez-faire, in spite of its perceived discrediting, has maintained a persistent influence over debates about distributive justice.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
