ABSTRACT
WHAT I propose to do in this lecture is to discuss the logical or rhetorical nature of the arguments by means of which exponents of laissez faire or of marked movement in its direction have attempted to win converts to their cause. My lecture will be focused not on the inherent merits or defects of laissez faire as social doctrine, but on the logical character of the case that its adherents have presented in support of it. My examination will be critical in large part, and in one major respect will not be judiciously balanced, since I would in many instances be even more critical of the arguments with which laissez faire has been attacked, but will not similarly examine these arguments. It does not add much, however, to the inherent strength of a doctrine that some deplorably bad arguments have been used against it.
