Henry Hazlitt was a champion, no doubt, and he was a man of courage and conviction. As I understand it, Henry Hazlitt was intellectually an advocate of laissez-faire but that was only part of his sound reasoning. He was a great ethicist and I encourage everyone to read his book "The Foundations of Morality." It was his ethical advocacy of laissez-faire which made him the rock solid voice for justice, libery and prosperity despite the flood of pseudo-information in the media, by the politicians, and in the 'economics' profession.
What is the implication of Hazlitt's depth of understanding and conviction? Would Hazlitt have been the lion of a man had he only understood laissez-faire intellectually? I think not.
This is my concern even today. There are many more intellectually confirmed advocates of laissez-faire nowadays and we can all be encouraged by this. But until there is the deeper understanding of laissez-faire at the ethical level we will not see the valor of Hazlitt when push comes to shove.
There is no moral authority for any economic intervention. Understanding this heightens the laissez-faire belief. The economy is a divine institution - this is the apex for understanding the true essence of laissez-faire economics.
For more information go to my website.
To earn a Masters Degree in Divine Economy Theory go here.
Go here to read about MACRO & MICRO Economics Renewed.
