3. What was the proper purpose of economics from the orthodox perspective? What was the objective of economics according to the institutionalists? How has this led to a different assessment of the consequences of laissez-faire by institutionalists, compared to that of orthodox economists? The orthodox perspectives of laissez-faire and social Darwinism share four fundamental principles: assumptions. First, there are laws of nature, such as competition and survival of the fittest, as well as inalienable and immutable rights to individual liberty and freedom of contract. The second is the effectiveness of Smith's self-interested "invisible hand" which leads to the production of goods and promotes the common good of society. Third, competition is desirable because it inspires initiative. Success is the result of hard work and not privileged status, which has an inherent regulating effect. Fourth, government and legislation slow economic and social progress because they are fundamentally corrupt and can be controlled by special interests and therefore cannot play an influential role. According to Kaufman, “the role of the state is to protect individual civil liberties and property rights; enforce contract law and provide certain essential services in the areas of education, health, defense and public protection. Beyond that, the State must go no further.” (Kaufman, p.18) From the perspective of institutionalists, the main goal of orthodox economic activity is to create material wealth and satisfy consumer demand, which is evident according to Smith's view according to which the sole end and purpose of all production is to meet this demand. (Kaufman, p. 19) Institutionalists believed that economic theory and judgment of the performance of the economy were not based on considerations due to market failure. Institutionalists view competitive and laissez-faire markets as detrimental to human personal development and self-realization, and have a long history of selfish motivation in competitive markets. Low-skilled workers or workers from minority groups often earn considerably less, which is at odds with the institutionalist ideal that personal development requires that every person have the ability to earn a living wage. Institutionalists also believed that competitive markets tended to abuse child labor and impose long hours on workers to achieve their ends. Although this is profitable from a purely economic point of view, it does not take into account the negative impact on the worker's personal development and the social impact. The monotony of repetitive work devoid of worker participation is ignored by orthodox economists, who view the free market system as a self-regulating system..