By way of review, there are three legitimate interests of government which overlap to some degree, but which also stand in opposition to each other to some degree - liberty, equality, and fraternity (human fellowship). Liberty allows for freedom of action, but paradoxically requires restrictions imposed by law. Equality seeks to demolish social stratification and encourages hard work in the lower classes and demands it in the upper classes. Equality strives for equal results, but through hard work and other social improvements, such as universal education. Fraternity demands that the well-being of each member of society be considered and fostered to the extent possible on a systemic level, that each member of society be provided with a purpose if necessary, but also that social structures should be as lateral (non-hierarchical) as possible.
In considering any public policy concern, these are the three factors which must be weighed against each other, and a sort of cost-benefit analysis conducted. Legitimate government allows for this analysis in such a way as to maximize adherence to the conclusion, but also in such a way as to most easily discard irrational and clearly erroneous conclusions. I suspect that there is never one clear answer to any given problem, but rather that there is a set of acceptable answers from which to choose, and that each society must be free to conduct their own cost-benefit analysis and determine their own solutions.
First, these three principles (particularly those of equality and fraternity) indicate a basic governmental system based in a democratic process. However, it does not indicate a pure democracy. Pure democracy would simply mean that the will of the majority prevails in every circumstance brought before it. This can be dangerous, as some of the ancient Athenians would no doubt testify. It was because of the will of the majority that Socrates was sentenced to death, an indisputable failure of pure democracy. Pure democracy can infringe on the liberty interests of others by including clearly erroneous and illogical solutions into the set of possible solutions for society to choose from. Thus, there must be a democratic system, limited to some degree by a Constitution. A Constitution is principally a guarantor of the liberty interests of minorities from the vagaries of a democracy. This restricts the set of available solutions to those which result from a logical cost-benefit analysis. Other elements may be included in any particular Constitution, but this is the primary purpose in a legitimate government.
Second, the liberty interests may be divided into two categories. Transitory vs. inalienable. Transitory rights are those which may vary from society to society and from time to time. For example, France has recently decided to provide its citizens with the right to get faulty breast implants removed at no direct cost to the patient. This may or may not change in France, but certainly varies by society. Other rights are deemed inalienable. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. However, this is largely based on John Locke's philosophy, which seems to me to have some serious flaws. Chiefly, Locke's approach is far too atomistic, taking individuals as the basic unit of society. However, as I've indicated in previous posts, I really disagree with this view. Individuals depend on society and society depends on individuals. Neither is more basic than the other. Thus, society (and government as the rough expression of the will of society), far from being a system perversely imposed upon individuals, is part of an essential relationship. It is in the nature of this relationship that any inalienable rights arise, not in the nature of the "basic" individual. Therefore, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may indeed be inalienable rights, but this should be revisited and reanalyzed rather than taken as gospel truth. To be complete, a Constitution ought to indicate what are recognized as inalienable rights, as well as provide for a means by which any new insights may be accommodated and made part of the Constitution.
Thus, we see that a legitimate government is democratic at its base, limited by a Constitution, which provides for both transitory and inalienable rights. Any other differences in how particular societies solve similar problems and balance the interests of liberty, equality, and fraternity is irrelevant, so long as the process itself is legitimate. This should be the primary goal of each independent state, and perhaps, the goal of our foreign policy.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Fraternite
I have delayed writing this post. I fear that other conservatives might feel that I am off base, that I am actually a "bleeding-heart liberal," and no conservative at all. However, I believe that for the conservative movement in America to flourish, we must accommodate the values which lie at the heart of our classical liberal tradition. Failure to do so will only further alienate others from our cause, or if we are successful politically but have surrendered those values then we will only succeed in moving America towards a dictatorial form of government because the only interest in such political success is merely the possession and exercise of power.
Brotherhood - Fellowship - Family - these are the concepts communicated by the term "Fraternite." "Brotherhood" is a bit too exclusionary of a term for today's world and the term "Family" might introduce unsettling paternalistic tendencies in a discussion of government, law and public policy. "Fellowship," or "Human Fellowship," I think most accurately captures the intended meaning. Two thoughts regarding "Human Fellowship" occur to me; 1) each person has a role, a place in society, a purpose; and 2) the interests of others, i.e. their welfare, plays a role in public policy decisions and in structuring the law.
In an order of Human Fellowship, each person has a role, a recognized and valued responsibility, a purpose. The importance of having a valued role in society is demonstrated by the psychological harm to those who are long-term unemployed during major economic downturns. They are rejected in their previous role by society, then effectively told that there is no place for them elsewhere. They are unneeded, undesired. This is a horrible situation which ought to be avoided if at all possible. In a stable social order, the various possible roles in society are well defined, although such a social order often includes limitations placed on individuals' eligibility for those roles. Thus, one's purpose in life is generally defined at birth. Such a system is undoubtedly disconcerting to the modern mind, but we ought not to overlook the positives. There would, I believe, be great comfort in knowing that one's role is valued, has a proud history, and that one need not constantly consider whether their life is "fulfilling." However, we should not over-idealize something which is problematic. In such a system, the talented and skilled would often be consigned to roles into which they do not fit. They would likely experience intense internal conflict between the comfort previously indicated and the knowledge, even if vague, that one is not living up to their potential. Thus, there is great value in allowing individuals to find their own role in society. However, this approach often results in a social order of change, with ill-defined roles, making the search for one's own role incredibly more difficult. Although people have the liberty to choose their own course in life, and what role they will fill, there is near constant anxiety that one is not fulfilling THEIR role. From the above, it may seem to some that a stable social order has more to offer than a changing one. I believe, however, that this is an illusion. There is no such thing as a truly stable social order. The very nature of society is to change and evolve over time as conditions change and the members which make it up change. The values and needs of society are in a constant state of flux, sometimes changing quickly, sometimes slowly, but always moving on to something different. To rigidly hold on to any specific social order and its accompanying roles will only cause society to stagnate, whither and die. Thus, a healthy vibrant society requires a social order which can accommodate such change but still provide a valued role for every member of it.
In terms of the economy, I believe that there is value in the social safety nets which have been created, e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment benefits. However, I think these safety nets can overlook a necessary factor. These programs often focus on the need for people to know that they are valued, even when they are the lowliest of society. This is only half of the picture. They also need to know that they serve a purpose, that their role is valued. Because people identify themselves by the role they play, to indicate that their role is valued is to indicate that they are valued. Thus, in some cases, to truly extend the benefits of the social safety nets, it would also be necessary to extend a role for the beneficiary to play. This leads to my second thought on "Human Fellowship," that the welfare of others plays a role in public policy decisions and the structure of the law.
I will consider here the structure of the law. Interestingly, the basic social structure indicated by "Fraternite" is not hierarchical but lateral. If one were to think of it in terms of an actual family, it might be similar to one in which the siblings have all grown up, and the parents have now deceased. There is no set hierarchy, but there is mutual support and concern, each fulfilling a role according to their abilities and the needs of the others. Is it possible to create a legal structure which approaches such a lateral structure? While allowing anybody to serve in the government and requiring periodic reviews of public servants' performance is possibly the best governmental structure, what of the structure of the law itself? I am struck here by the fact that in such a familial approach, the concern with "justice" is less pronounced. While we all want to be treated fairly, there are times at which it is best to overlook one's own interest in "justice" and look more towards repairing and strengthening relationships. I don't believe that in one's personal life one should overlook when others have slighted you, but rather than being chiefly concerned with oneself and one's own hurt and demand for "justice," one should realize that the slight has harmed your relationship and appropriate measures should be taken to repair it. Sometimes such measures mean to reestablish appropriate boundaries of behavior, but not always, and even when it does, the means by which those boundaries are reestablished are important as it will redefine the relationship. Similarly, the law is chiefly concerned with relationships and the strain and harm done to them by the acts of at least one party. A legal structure based on "Human Fellowship" would focus chiefly on the relationship, considering how to repair it and what means to employ in reestablishing appropriate boundaries of behavior.
This was the basic idea of the prison system when it was first established. Alexis de Tocqueville (the author of Democracy in America) was technically sent to our new nation to study our revolutionary prison system. It had piqued the interest of those in Europe because the theory of our prison system was to reform those who were incarcerated. Historically, offenders were simply punished, often publicly. The punishment itself was meant to reinforce appropriate behavior in others. Those crazy Americans thought that they could reform members of society who had strayed and accordingly abolished cruel and unusual punishments. This interest in reforming wayward members of society, or rather, in repairing social relationships, is I think a proud American tradition that we should bear in mind, and which our legal system should more adequately reflect.
Brotherhood - Fellowship - Family - these are the concepts communicated by the term "Fraternite." "Brotherhood" is a bit too exclusionary of a term for today's world and the term "Family" might introduce unsettling paternalistic tendencies in a discussion of government, law and public policy. "Fellowship," or "Human Fellowship," I think most accurately captures the intended meaning. Two thoughts regarding "Human Fellowship" occur to me; 1) each person has a role, a place in society, a purpose; and 2) the interests of others, i.e. their welfare, plays a role in public policy decisions and in structuring the law.
In an order of Human Fellowship, each person has a role, a recognized and valued responsibility, a purpose. The importance of having a valued role in society is demonstrated by the psychological harm to those who are long-term unemployed during major economic downturns. They are rejected in their previous role by society, then effectively told that there is no place for them elsewhere. They are unneeded, undesired. This is a horrible situation which ought to be avoided if at all possible. In a stable social order, the various possible roles in society are well defined, although such a social order often includes limitations placed on individuals' eligibility for those roles. Thus, one's purpose in life is generally defined at birth. Such a system is undoubtedly disconcerting to the modern mind, but we ought not to overlook the positives. There would, I believe, be great comfort in knowing that one's role is valued, has a proud history, and that one need not constantly consider whether their life is "fulfilling." However, we should not over-idealize something which is problematic. In such a system, the talented and skilled would often be consigned to roles into which they do not fit. They would likely experience intense internal conflict between the comfort previously indicated and the knowledge, even if vague, that one is not living up to their potential. Thus, there is great value in allowing individuals to find their own role in society. However, this approach often results in a social order of change, with ill-defined roles, making the search for one's own role incredibly more difficult. Although people have the liberty to choose their own course in life, and what role they will fill, there is near constant anxiety that one is not fulfilling THEIR role. From the above, it may seem to some that a stable social order has more to offer than a changing one. I believe, however, that this is an illusion. There is no such thing as a truly stable social order. The very nature of society is to change and evolve over time as conditions change and the members which make it up change. The values and needs of society are in a constant state of flux, sometimes changing quickly, sometimes slowly, but always moving on to something different. To rigidly hold on to any specific social order and its accompanying roles will only cause society to stagnate, whither and die. Thus, a healthy vibrant society requires a social order which can accommodate such change but still provide a valued role for every member of it.
In terms of the economy, I believe that there is value in the social safety nets which have been created, e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment benefits. However, I think these safety nets can overlook a necessary factor. These programs often focus on the need for people to know that they are valued, even when they are the lowliest of society. This is only half of the picture. They also need to know that they serve a purpose, that their role is valued. Because people identify themselves by the role they play, to indicate that their role is valued is to indicate that they are valued. Thus, in some cases, to truly extend the benefits of the social safety nets, it would also be necessary to extend a role for the beneficiary to play. This leads to my second thought on "Human Fellowship," that the welfare of others plays a role in public policy decisions and the structure of the law.
I will consider here the structure of the law. Interestingly, the basic social structure indicated by "Fraternite" is not hierarchical but lateral. If one were to think of it in terms of an actual family, it might be similar to one in which the siblings have all grown up, and the parents have now deceased. There is no set hierarchy, but there is mutual support and concern, each fulfilling a role according to their abilities and the needs of the others. Is it possible to create a legal structure which approaches such a lateral structure? While allowing anybody to serve in the government and requiring periodic reviews of public servants' performance is possibly the best governmental structure, what of the structure of the law itself? I am struck here by the fact that in such a familial approach, the concern with "justice" is less pronounced. While we all want to be treated fairly, there are times at which it is best to overlook one's own interest in "justice" and look more towards repairing and strengthening relationships. I don't believe that in one's personal life one should overlook when others have slighted you, but rather than being chiefly concerned with oneself and one's own hurt and demand for "justice," one should realize that the slight has harmed your relationship and appropriate measures should be taken to repair it. Sometimes such measures mean to reestablish appropriate boundaries of behavior, but not always, and even when it does, the means by which those boundaries are reestablished are important as it will redefine the relationship. Similarly, the law is chiefly concerned with relationships and the strain and harm done to them by the acts of at least one party. A legal structure based on "Human Fellowship" would focus chiefly on the relationship, considering how to repair it and what means to employ in reestablishing appropriate boundaries of behavior.
This was the basic idea of the prison system when it was first established. Alexis de Tocqueville (the author of Democracy in America) was technically sent to our new nation to study our revolutionary prison system. It had piqued the interest of those in Europe because the theory of our prison system was to reform those who were incarcerated. Historically, offenders were simply punished, often publicly. The punishment itself was meant to reinforce appropriate behavior in others. Those crazy Americans thought that they could reform members of society who had strayed and accordingly abolished cruel and unusual punishments. This interest in reforming wayward members of society, or rather, in repairing social relationships, is I think a proud American tradition that we should bear in mind, and which our legal system should more adequately reflect.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 4
Memorable Quotes:
"[W]hen the division of labor first began to take place, . . . , [o]ne man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former . . . would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them. . . . [E]very prudent man . . . must naturally have endeavored to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him . . . a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry."
"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. . . . The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use."
The Basic Idea:
Division of labor being established, every man lives by exchanging. Difficulties of barter lead to the selection of one commodity as money, for example, cattle, salt, shells, cod, tobacco, sugar, leather and nails. Metals were eventually preferred because durable and divisible. Iron, copper, gold and silver, were at first used in unstamped bars, and afterwards stamped to show quantity and fineness; stamps to show fineness being introduced first, and coinage to show weight later. The names of coins originally expressed their weight. The next inquiry is what rules determine exchangeable value. Value may mean either value in use or value in exchange. Three questions, 1) wherein consists the real price of commodities, 2) what are the different parts of this price, 3) why the market price sometimes diverges from this price, will be answered in the next three chapters.
Reflections:
While I disagree with the basic process of how the use of money became necessary, the purpose served by money is undoubtedly precisely that which Smith here expounds - the facilitation of exchange. My qualm with the process of how it became necessary arises from the thought that if exchanging is made difficult by the lack of money or other symbolic expression of value, then what would have been the incentive to specialize and produce an excessive amount of some commodity, thereby neglecting the production of others, in the first place? The need for money certainly arose from excessive production of some goods, but I don't believe that that excessive production first occurred because of specialization. Rather, it seems more likely that excessive production first occurred because of communal cooperation in some industries, i.e. agriculture, which then provided free time for people to specialize. Thus, the need to facilitate trade first arose within a fairly sedentary community for the purpose of achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth. Such a distribution of wealth is made necessary precisely for the reason enunciated by Smith - one person discovers or develops a particular skill, and the use of this skill in his own service quickly diminishes in value. Therefore, he begins to exchange his skill for the skill and produce of others. However, the discovery or development of that skill still depended upon a communal effort to provide all the bare necessities for life. The use of money as we understand it was therefore instituted by various governments so that people could more effectively exchange their skills and products, thereby enriching themselves and the rest of society. Thus, we see that the modern market arises 1st, out of society providing enough basic requirements for life so as to provide leisure time, and 2nd, out of the government "intervening," in this case by creating mints, for the purpose of spreading to others the benefits of anybody's particular skill. Some might argue that this means that we may not need money, and indeed we may not. The principle, by explaining the rule, supersedes it. However, I am currently unaware of any better method to achieve these ends which simultaneously maintains the positive features of the use of money. Of course, I don't mean to say that if I can't think of it then it must not be possible. I'm more than willing to hear creative ideas. Its just that, as a conservative, I will require more than creative ideas before I throw my support behind something.
"[W]hen the division of labor first began to take place, . . . , [o]ne man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former . . . would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them. . . . [E]very prudent man . . . must naturally have endeavored to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him . . . a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry."
"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. . . . The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use."
The Basic Idea:
Division of labor being established, every man lives by exchanging. Difficulties of barter lead to the selection of one commodity as money, for example, cattle, salt, shells, cod, tobacco, sugar, leather and nails. Metals were eventually preferred because durable and divisible. Iron, copper, gold and silver, were at first used in unstamped bars, and afterwards stamped to show quantity and fineness; stamps to show fineness being introduced first, and coinage to show weight later. The names of coins originally expressed their weight. The next inquiry is what rules determine exchangeable value. Value may mean either value in use or value in exchange. Three questions, 1) wherein consists the real price of commodities, 2) what are the different parts of this price, 3) why the market price sometimes diverges from this price, will be answered in the next three chapters.
Reflections:
While I disagree with the basic process of how the use of money became necessary, the purpose served by money is undoubtedly precisely that which Smith here expounds - the facilitation of exchange. My qualm with the process of how it became necessary arises from the thought that if exchanging is made difficult by the lack of money or other symbolic expression of value, then what would have been the incentive to specialize and produce an excessive amount of some commodity, thereby neglecting the production of others, in the first place? The need for money certainly arose from excessive production of some goods, but I don't believe that that excessive production first occurred because of specialization. Rather, it seems more likely that excessive production first occurred because of communal cooperation in some industries, i.e. agriculture, which then provided free time for people to specialize. Thus, the need to facilitate trade first arose within a fairly sedentary community for the purpose of achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth. Such a distribution of wealth is made necessary precisely for the reason enunciated by Smith - one person discovers or develops a particular skill, and the use of this skill in his own service quickly diminishes in value. Therefore, he begins to exchange his skill for the skill and produce of others. However, the discovery or development of that skill still depended upon a communal effort to provide all the bare necessities for life. The use of money as we understand it was therefore instituted by various governments so that people could more effectively exchange their skills and products, thereby enriching themselves and the rest of society. Thus, we see that the modern market arises 1st, out of society providing enough basic requirements for life so as to provide leisure time, and 2nd, out of the government "intervening," in this case by creating mints, for the purpose of spreading to others the benefits of anybody's particular skill. Some might argue that this means that we may not need money, and indeed we may not. The principle, by explaining the rule, supersedes it. However, I am currently unaware of any better method to achieve these ends which simultaneously maintains the positive features of the use of money. Of course, I don't mean to say that if I can't think of it then it must not be possible. I'm more than willing to hear creative ideas. Its just that, as a conservative, I will require more than creative ideas before I throw my support behind something.
Friday, November 18, 2011
The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 3
Memorable Quotes:
"As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labor, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power [the power to exchange], or in other words, by the extent of the market."
The Basic Idea:
Division of labor is limited by the extent of the power of exchanging. Various trades cannot be carried on except in towns. Water-carriage widens the market, and so the first improvements are on the seacoast or navigable rivers, for example among the ancient nations on the Mediterranean coast. Improvements first took place in Egypt, Bengal and China; while Africa, Tartary [inland Russia], and also Bavaria, Austria and Hungary are backward.
Reflections:
This point seems rather straight forward, though insightful. If wealth derives from the division of labor, i.e. specialization, which is made available because the specialists can rely on others to provide them with other necessaries, then the amount of specialization that any society is capable of will necessarily be limited by the size of that society, i.e. the amount of people which can provide others with necessaries. By expanding the access to the goods provided by others, i.e. by expanding markets, more people are enabled to specialize and thereby increase the wealth of society. Smith emphasizes the use of waterways to expand markets as a historical observation, but this point can be seen in our times. The advent of the internet connects the far away corners of the world to major metropolitan centers, which increases demand and supply in various industries, thereby allowing others to desist from their previous employment and specialize in something else. Of course, as was mentioned in my last post, globalization isn't so much "enabling" people to desist from their previous employment as it is forcing them to. Thus, the traditional occupations are decimated here at home and those who are directly affected require support in finding other employment. It seems important to do everything reasonably possible to allow for their mobility, whether geographical or occupational. If the unemployed insist on finding work in their previous specialization, they need to be able to move to where the work is. If the unemployed are more willing and are adept enough to re-specialize, they should be have access to the means to do so.
On another note, artificial limitations on the market, or in other words, limitations on the power to exchange, will necessarily restrict people from seeking greater or other specializations, thereby delaying the growth of wealth in society. Is such a delay warranted? I would think so, at least in some cases. If nothing else, it seems that sometimes providing for a level of stability in society does more good towards developing wealth than does a state of constant change. That thought certainly requires fuller development, and if anyone would like to discuss it further, please feel free to comment. Otherwise, for the sake of brevity, I'll move on.
"As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labor, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power [the power to exchange], or in other words, by the extent of the market."
The Basic Idea:
Division of labor is limited by the extent of the power of exchanging. Various trades cannot be carried on except in towns. Water-carriage widens the market, and so the first improvements are on the seacoast or navigable rivers, for example among the ancient nations on the Mediterranean coast. Improvements first took place in Egypt, Bengal and China; while Africa, Tartary [inland Russia], and also Bavaria, Austria and Hungary are backward.
Reflections:
This point seems rather straight forward, though insightful. If wealth derives from the division of labor, i.e. specialization, which is made available because the specialists can rely on others to provide them with other necessaries, then the amount of specialization that any society is capable of will necessarily be limited by the size of that society, i.e. the amount of people which can provide others with necessaries. By expanding the access to the goods provided by others, i.e. by expanding markets, more people are enabled to specialize and thereby increase the wealth of society. Smith emphasizes the use of waterways to expand markets as a historical observation, but this point can be seen in our times. The advent of the internet connects the far away corners of the world to major metropolitan centers, which increases demand and supply in various industries, thereby allowing others to desist from their previous employment and specialize in something else. Of course, as was mentioned in my last post, globalization isn't so much "enabling" people to desist from their previous employment as it is forcing them to. Thus, the traditional occupations are decimated here at home and those who are directly affected require support in finding other employment. It seems important to do everything reasonably possible to allow for their mobility, whether geographical or occupational. If the unemployed insist on finding work in their previous specialization, they need to be able to move to where the work is. If the unemployed are more willing and are adept enough to re-specialize, they should be have access to the means to do so.
On another note, artificial limitations on the market, or in other words, limitations on the power to exchange, will necessarily restrict people from seeking greater or other specializations, thereby delaying the growth of wealth in society. Is such a delay warranted? I would think so, at least in some cases. If nothing else, it seems that sometimes providing for a level of stability in society does more good towards developing wealth than does a state of constant change. That thought certainly requires fuller development, and if anyone would like to discuss it further, please feel free to comment. Otherwise, for the sake of brevity, I'll move on.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 2
Memorable Quotes:
"In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them."
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage. Nobody but a beggar [chooses] to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
"[T]he very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labor. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education."
The Basic Point:
The division of labor arises from a propensity in human nature to exchange. This propensity is found in man alone. It is encouraged by self-interest and leads to division of labor, thus giving rise to differences of talent more important than the natural differences, and rendering those differences useful.
Reflections:
Well, beyond what I would consider over-generalizations about the animal kingdom, I'd say that he's about right that the propensity to trade is found chiefly, if not exclusively, in human beings. However, that trade is the natural foundation of economic activity doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only behavior of economic activity, nor of social activity. It may be shown that it is the only appropriate foundation for economic behavior, but Smith hasn't demonstrated it to be so yet. Furthermore, I'm not sure that I agree with his observations regarding the differences between people. Such an opinion of human equality was certainly prevalent in the intellectual work of his time, but I think that there are important differences in people's potentials even when they're very young. Those differences may not be readily discernible, but I really do not believe that education alone can make anyone as skilled as someone who couples that education with a natural proclivity. This is the very problem our economy is facing right now - with the level of globalization we're experiencing, the simple jobs are being outsourced. This requires that the US develop a workforce which is almost exclusively founded on intellectual services, which requires a fairly high degree of education. However, not everybody is cut out for that degree of education nor of specialization. In fact, a large amount of people aren't cut out for it. So the challenge facing us is, where do these people fit into our economic system?
"In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them."
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage. Nobody but a beggar [chooses] to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
"[T]he very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labor. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education."
The Basic Point:
The division of labor arises from a propensity in human nature to exchange. This propensity is found in man alone. It is encouraged by self-interest and leads to division of labor, thus giving rise to differences of talent more important than the natural differences, and rendering those differences useful.
Reflections:
Well, beyond what I would consider over-generalizations about the animal kingdom, I'd say that he's about right that the propensity to trade is found chiefly, if not exclusively, in human beings. However, that trade is the natural foundation of economic activity doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only behavior of economic activity, nor of social activity. It may be shown that it is the only appropriate foundation for economic behavior, but Smith hasn't demonstrated it to be so yet. Furthermore, I'm not sure that I agree with his observations regarding the differences between people. Such an opinion of human equality was certainly prevalent in the intellectual work of his time, but I think that there are important differences in people's potentials even when they're very young. Those differences may not be readily discernible, but I really do not believe that education alone can make anyone as skilled as someone who couples that education with a natural proclivity. This is the very problem our economy is facing right now - with the level of globalization we're experiencing, the simple jobs are being outsourced. This requires that the US develop a workforce which is almost exclusively founded on intellectual services, which requires a fairly high degree of education. However, not everybody is cut out for that degree of education nor of specialization. In fact, a large amount of people aren't cut out for it. So the challenge facing us is, where do these people fit into our economic system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)