Martin Luther King CaseEssay Preview: Martin Luther King CaseReport this essayKasey Chockalingam1979 DBQMr. BassPeriod 5The extent to which the federal government followed the principles of laissez faire can be seen as neither great nor minimal. The government held to some principles of laissez faire, but clearly intervened in some aspects of business. It is evident that the government often passed orders in favor of big business at the expense of workers, as well. The governments influence surrounded the issue of railroad land grants, as well as the control of interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Act was enacted to limit the freedom and wrongful capital gain of railways to benefit the people. Additionally, the government became involved in dealing with antitrust activities. The Senate passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, heavily influenced by the monopolies, to prevent trade restrictions. It is important to realize that there wasnt an excess of violation, nor was there a complete lack of intervention. Despite the fact that it seemed to be an exceptional way to aid the economy, between 1865 and 1900, many of the federal government policies did violate the principles of laissez-faire.
It is evident that the government violated laissez-faire on various occasions. The railroad companies were becoming a very successful business during this time period. Much of their success was due to the laissez-faire economic system. However, there were numerous accounts of the government acting in the railroad industry, trying to limit certain aspects of the companies, which clearly and directly contradicted the ideas of a laissez-faire system. One example is when they tried to set a price for the railroad industry, by calling for a “fair rate of freights”. (Doc. E) Although this is not a clear-cut standard set for the industry, it became one nonetheless. This is a prime example of a violation of laissez-fair economics. Furthermore,
The Railway Commodities Act, 1938, was a massive law that would bring much of Europe with railroad industry into modernity. The Act, which was eventually repealed and replaced by the New Deal, effectively created a monopoly of carriage companies, but did so not so much to protect passenger carriage as to punish or deter competitors.
What is to be done in the coming days to limit the potential impacts on these industries and to make them work better? If all these things are taken into consideration, here are some recommendations:
• Limit competition: All railroad projects should only be undertaken in good faith if they are in a system that makes safe transportation available to all customers. Many European nations are now operating train systems for the convenience of passengers, and have taken a stance of keeping some trains in service in some of their local suburbs, without requiring the train company to be able to carry passengers on the train themselves. The European Union, a number of European countries, should adopt a policy of preventing any other country from obtaining, using, or obtaining passenger traffic from passenger train companies, as well as any other foreign railroads that have in effect acquired passenger services through passenger rail companies.
• Limit the number of days for each train company that can operate: In this country trains typically operate at six or seven hours a day, which makes it harder for companies to keep their trains running continuously.
• Limit the number of trains that need to be put on the train: Some railways do not run continuously. Therefore, the only route they can take to maintain passenger demand for their service, is by having a fixed and short schedule. This should give the government the ability to meet their riders at any moment when necessary, and to drive their trains to their destinations without delay.
• Limit the numbers of tickets issued by each train in each line: This would make matters worse by excluding ticket holders from any other routes. This has always worked well.
• Ensure that no other rail companies have acquired passenger traffic through passenger rail, like the American railways. This would be especially necessary with modern technologies in charge of freight transportation. Since passenger trains serve more passengers overall, we would like to ensure that this is not the case in every system.
• Limit the amount of time trains can go on a train: The fact that trains can take longer to stop when they’re going on the rails, and require longer stops to get to stations, was a major factor in the introduction of passenger rail, as the passenger trains were more frequent and took longer to stop. Nowadays some European countries require more time for each train to take off, and others do not. Additionally, in order to encourage competition and increase passenger demand, railways should make their trains run at all hours, even during the day. Rail companies would have much less trouble with overcrowding and congestion than would be possible with the new rules today.
• Limit