"Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital"

Benjamin Tucker, a 19th-century independent anarchist and proponent of free-market socialism, made a poignant review of the economic systems of his time with his statement: "Laissez Faire was excellent sauce for the goose, labor, however was extremely bad sauce for the gander, capital". This remark encapsulates a crucial viewpoint on how laissez-faire principles-- generally related to minimal governmental intervention-- were used unevenly to labor and capital.

In this metaphor, Tucker likens labor to the "goose" and capital to the "glimpse", recommending an analogy where the very same treatment or system (the "sauce" of laissez-faire) yields different outcomes for these two entities. When used to labor, the concepts of laissez-faire, which emphasize very little interference and totally free competitors, tend to benefit employees by possibly cultivating environments where they may freely negotiate the regards to their employment and utilize their abilities and efficiency in a competitive market. Ideally, this would lead to fairer wages and working conditions driven by the natural supply and demand of labor.

However, Tucker explains that the exact same laissez-faire rhetoric turned out to be disadvantageous when used to the "gander", or capital. In practice, capitalists often took pleasure in extra defenses and advantages-- be it through monopolies, subsidies, tariffs, or other kinds of federal government intervention-- contrary to the spirit of laissez-faire. These benefits altered the competitive landscape, enabling capital to build up more power while labor was left vulnerable to exploitation.

Tucker's observation underscores the fundamental contradictions and inequities in the execution of laissez-faire economics of his time. While upholding a system that promotes liberty and equality, the actual practice frequently resulted in unequal playing fields, where capital controlled and labor had a hard time under the unequal application of these supposed free-market concepts.

By highlighting this disparity, Tucker challenges the concept of laissez-faire as an universally reasonable system. His critique remains pertinent to discussions on financial policy and labor rights, emphasizing the need for authentic equality in the application of economic concepts to ensure both labor and capital are subject to the exact same fair rules.