No it isn't. Laissez faire means everyone leaving everyone else alone, with government acting in the role of a referee. Any party that uses force to rob the life, liberty or property of others is violating laissez faire principles, and is fair game for retaliatory force by the government.

Laissez-faire is an anarchic ideology.

> Any party that uses force to rob the life, liberty or property of others is violating laissez faire principles

The term to describe this party is, a "government."

Government does not always do this, and not all parties that do this are governments.

A government is an institution which has monopolized the use of force in an area.

And in Somalia, there is no such monopoly, so everyone is free to use force on everyone else in a fully unregulated environment. The strong conquer the weak, and are conquered in turn. You’d love it, I’ll buy the ticket for you.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that laissez-faire doesn't mean the absence of government.

Being opposed to anti-free-market interventions by the government is not the same thing as being opposed to the existence of government.

I had literally explained this multiple times in this very discussion, before you posted your comment.

There seems to be no exchange of actual information and building of understanding in these discussions.

I was responding to this gem of your’s: A government is an institution which has monopolized the use of force in an area.

What you’re on about now, I have no idea.

How are disputes adjudicated without a referee?

The above is a typo. It should say laissez-faire is NOT an anarchic ideology.

The state may be gone, but the Somali Islamic and clan structures of governance remained in place, and they are deeply tyrannical and anti-freedom to the core.