For our purposes, one thing to notice about The Wealth of Nations is the broadly utilitarian presuppositions it embodies. It has as strong a dose of individualism as does Rousseau, for example, and a marked preference for maximization of quantifiable goods.
Smith argues against the protection of domestic markets, on the grounds that this "unnatural" (watch out for the emotive force of that term!) regulation of markets will be 1) unnecessary if domestic products are cheaper than imports 2) have no effect if they cost the same, and 3) be harmful (i.e., to the individual purchaser) if they are costlier. But he has just completed an account of the salutary effects and general preferability of healthy local markets. Here an individualist bias may cause him to miss a larger potential collective benefit in stability, mutual assistance, and collective security possible with well-crafted and flexible regulation.
It is worth noting that he is not uniformly against government regulation. Most of the places he rails against it pertain specifically to mercantilist capitalism (state-sponsored international trade monopolies, such as the British East India Company, etc.) that were rampant under European colonialism. He is quite correct; such policies generated vast wealth at the direct expense of both domestic and foreign workers.
Smith's occasional excesses perhaps illustrate one danger of leaning too heavily on the Lockean notion that property relations have a basis in nature. We don't want to discard the insight simply because it risks exaggeration, however...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i took a class my freshman year of college called "social environments of business" where i learned about jeremy bentham's idea of utilitarianism. bentham, being one of john stuart mill's biggest influences proposed the idea of utilitarianism, but the major refutation to his philosophy was that it was hedonistic and left out principle of fairness. even by today's standards, bentham's philosophy would be considered liberal; but the complete separation between business and state produces the issues we are facing in the free market capitalism paradigm of today.
i agree that the state sponsored international monopolies are unjust, but freedom from government allows private or corporate sponsored monopolies (the focus of the class was the robber barren's of the early 20th century which took complete advantage of the lack of government intervention). we welcome government intervention to provide a safe work environment (OSHA) and for assurance that the products we purchase are safe (surgeon general, the warnings on child toys)
This is exactly right. As I read Smith, his general antipathy to government interference in the market is directed precisely at mercantilism. Corporate capitalism of the sort, and on the scale, we see today did not exist in the 18th century, and many of its dangers are analogous to those of mercantilism (monopoly power, for example). He says many things to indicate he values the role of government in economic life (concerning just the sorts of issues you mention). It is a serious intellectual error, if not positively dishonest, to read him as an advocate of anti-government, unfettered capitalism.
Post a Comment