Adam Smith Was Not an Extremist
Marc Lombardo writes: ‘Your Government Lied to You. So What?’ in the The Public Sphere Blog Here:
“John Locke argued for limiting governmental powers on the basis of a strict distinction between public and private: the king can perhaps tell a man what he ought to do when that man is out in the world, but no one should tell him what he can or cannot do when he is in his own home. The male pronoun is instructive in this case, as Locke was effectively transposing the classical figure of the pater familias, resulting in the birth of a peculiarly modern entity: homo economicus.
Adam Smith made the economic significance of Locke’s notion of private liberty more explicit, showing that the concepts of property and liberty are fundamentally intertwined. Smith argued that even the public good (i.e., what is best for all) is most effectively and efficiently pursued only when private interests are left unchecked by any external influences whatsoever (most especially, that of the government). The liberals defined private liberty as existing only to the extent that the government did not interfere with it. This in turn required that private liberty could only be protected if and when private individuals came together collectively in order to limit the exercise of governmental power upon their lives.
As such, from the liberal viewpoint, the ability to do what one wants in one’s private life depends entirely upon the public and cooperative practice of constantly and diligently surveiling and criticizing everything that the government does. The active public manifestation of the distrust of government is the basis for all other private liberties. The U.S. Founders, being good liberals, naturally placed the “First Amendment” first in the Bill of Rights.
Comment
The article is actually about President George W. Bush and his alleged wrongdoing over the Iraq war, of which I have no comments as I do not vote in the USA. I am, however, concerned with Marc Lombardo drawing Adam Smith into the argument:
“Smith argued that even the public good (i.e., what is best for all) is most effectively and efficiently pursued only when private interests are left unchecked by any external influences whatsoever (most especially, that of the government).”
This is not what I read of Adam Smith’s views (he didn't believe in Homo economicus. The private realm was not absolutely sacrosanct. That is stretching Smith’s philosophy too far (well past breaking point). There are numerous exceptions to the absolutist viewpoint – Adam Smith was not a libertarian. In the absence of other revenue-raising sources of taxation he accepted the need for import tariffs to fund government expenditures, even at the expense of sacrifing Britain being a free-port.
Certain areas of private life were sacrosanct – the natural law theories of the right to one’s person, one’s labour, one’s property (the latter modified because he accepted the right – the necessity – of taxation for legal purposes, as voted by the legislature, not demanded by the sovereign).
It was in this respect that he saw Britain’s parliamentary veto over the King’s taxation powers as the real essence of liberty, which made the British sovereign a constitutional monarch and not an absolutist monarchy as per France, Spain and elsewhere. Liberty in Britain, and what liberty became in the United States, were not quite the same idea, at least as far as Smith was prepared to acknowledge publicly.
Contrary, even to quite modest libertarian ideals, Smith endorsed the Acts of Navigation, instituted by Oliver Cromwell and continued by the restored monarchy into the mid 19th century, which conferred on British -owned, and British-crewed, shipping an absolute monopoly of commercial trade with and among the British colonies in North America.
These Acts constituted a breach of natural liberty, as did the coinage, the post, the quality stamping of cloths, assay marking of gold and silver plate and bullion, the need to erect party walls to prevent the spread of fire, the issuing of small denomination currency notes, interest rates, banking, public works to facilitate commerce, education, health, organizations of religious denominations, and the administration of justice.
I am not convinced that Adam Smith would have agreed with:
‘As such, from the liberal viewpoint, the ability to do what one wants in one’s private life depends entirely upon the public and cooperative practice of constantly and diligently surveiling and criticizing everything that the government does.’
That amounts to a policy of perpetual criticism of government practice, an impractical ideal and a rather juvenile ambition of a small minority of ‘professional demonstrators’ whose single-issue agendas easily lead to extremism and becomes as tyrannical as the stereotypes of the people whom they are criticising.
Most people in Smith’s day – and I dare say in ours – have other things to do of greater importance to them, such as families, work and play, than to be in 24/7 opposition to ‘everything’ governments do. The obsessions of the people in the ‘beltway’ and the ‘Westminster Village’ are of limited interest to most people in democracies, even when governments behave really badly.
It’s hard enough to get a large majority to vote out the lot currently in and to vote in the lot currently out.
Adam Smith did not have a vote under the existing franchise in Scotland and I do not detect any particular wish he may have had to have a vote.
“John Locke argued for limiting governmental powers on the basis of a strict distinction between public and private: the king can perhaps tell a man what he ought to do when that man is out in the world, but no one should tell him what he can or cannot do when he is in his own home. The male pronoun is instructive in this case, as Locke was effectively transposing the classical figure of the pater familias, resulting in the birth of a peculiarly modern entity: homo economicus.
Adam Smith made the economic significance of Locke’s notion of private liberty more explicit, showing that the concepts of property and liberty are fundamentally intertwined. Smith argued that even the public good (i.e., what is best for all) is most effectively and efficiently pursued only when private interests are left unchecked by any external influences whatsoever (most especially, that of the government). The liberals defined private liberty as existing only to the extent that the government did not interfere with it. This in turn required that private liberty could only be protected if and when private individuals came together collectively in order to limit the exercise of governmental power upon their lives.
As such, from the liberal viewpoint, the ability to do what one wants in one’s private life depends entirely upon the public and cooperative practice of constantly and diligently surveiling and criticizing everything that the government does. The active public manifestation of the distrust of government is the basis for all other private liberties. The U.S. Founders, being good liberals, naturally placed the “First Amendment” first in the Bill of Rights.
Comment
The article is actually about President George W. Bush and his alleged wrongdoing over the Iraq war, of which I have no comments as I do not vote in the USA. I am, however, concerned with Marc Lombardo drawing Adam Smith into the argument:
“Smith argued that even the public good (i.e., what is best for all) is most effectively and efficiently pursued only when private interests are left unchecked by any external influences whatsoever (most especially, that of the government).”
This is not what I read of Adam Smith’s views (he didn't believe in Homo economicus. The private realm was not absolutely sacrosanct. That is stretching Smith’s philosophy too far (well past breaking point). There are numerous exceptions to the absolutist viewpoint – Adam Smith was not a libertarian. In the absence of other revenue-raising sources of taxation he accepted the need for import tariffs to fund government expenditures, even at the expense of sacrifing Britain being a free-port.
Certain areas of private life were sacrosanct – the natural law theories of the right to one’s person, one’s labour, one’s property (the latter modified because he accepted the right – the necessity – of taxation for legal purposes, as voted by the legislature, not demanded by the sovereign).
It was in this respect that he saw Britain’s parliamentary veto over the King’s taxation powers as the real essence of liberty, which made the British sovereign a constitutional monarch and not an absolutist monarchy as per France, Spain and elsewhere. Liberty in Britain, and what liberty became in the United States, were not quite the same idea, at least as far as Smith was prepared to acknowledge publicly.
Contrary, even to quite modest libertarian ideals, Smith endorsed the Acts of Navigation, instituted by Oliver Cromwell and continued by the restored monarchy into the mid 19th century, which conferred on British -owned, and British-crewed, shipping an absolute monopoly of commercial trade with and among the British colonies in North America.
These Acts constituted a breach of natural liberty, as did the coinage, the post, the quality stamping of cloths, assay marking of gold and silver plate and bullion, the need to erect party walls to prevent the spread of fire, the issuing of small denomination currency notes, interest rates, banking, public works to facilitate commerce, education, health, organizations of religious denominations, and the administration of justice.
I am not convinced that Adam Smith would have agreed with:
‘As such, from the liberal viewpoint, the ability to do what one wants in one’s private life depends entirely upon the public and cooperative practice of constantly and diligently surveiling and criticizing everything that the government does.’
That amounts to a policy of perpetual criticism of government practice, an impractical ideal and a rather juvenile ambition of a small minority of ‘professional demonstrators’ whose single-issue agendas easily lead to extremism and becomes as tyrannical as the stereotypes of the people whom they are criticising.
Most people in Smith’s day – and I dare say in ours – have other things to do of greater importance to them, such as families, work and play, than to be in 24/7 opposition to ‘everything’ governments do. The obsessions of the people in the ‘beltway’ and the ‘Westminster Village’ are of limited interest to most people in democracies, even when governments behave really badly.
It’s hard enough to get a large majority to vote out the lot currently in and to vote in the lot currently out.
Adam Smith did not have a vote under the existing franchise in Scotland and I do not detect any particular wish he may have had to have a vote.
Labels: Libertarianism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home