Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- The author appears also to misread Paul Atkins, they say:
But in the speech they link to, the words are:Start with the Declaration. Mr. Atkins’s most concrete evidence is Jefferson’s well-worn copy of “The Wealth of Nations.” But the Monticello source cited in his own footnote reports that Jefferson acquired the book while serving in France between 1784 and 1789, at least eight years after he drafted the Declaration. Jefferson may have encountered Smith’s ideas before 1776, but there is no evidence that “The Wealth of Nations” shaped the Declaration.
There is no possible way to read that as saying that the Declaration of Independence was shaped by The Wealth of Nations. It pretty clearly states that the "idea" is something that was refined separately but contemporaneously. He also says that the idea was pre-existing, hence that it found it's "fullest expression" in 1776 in the two separate documents.At the heart of our Founding Fathers’ revolution stood an idea—one that found its fullest expression in two fateful documents, crafted an ocean apart but together in time in 1776: one penned in the summer heat of Philadelphia, the other in the intellectual winds of Edinburgh. ... The authors never met, yet their ideas were inseparable, and their contemporaneous works rested on the same conviction: trust the individual, not the institution.The closest thing said in the speech that could be read as "the Declaration of Independence was inspired by The Wealth of Nations" is the next section of the speech:
If you read that quickly I can see how you might read it as "The Wealth of Nations inspired the Declaration" but the reading that I have and that I think was obviously intended was Jefferson was a drawn to the same principles and ideas that Smith was, and so it is unsurprising that these documents written in the same times by likeminded people share common core ideas.Thomas Jefferson was no stranger to Adam Smith’s philosophy—he was, in fact, a student of it, evidenced by the well-worn copy of The Wealth of Nations contained in his library, from which he gleaned wisdom that he shared freely with friends and correspondents. It is little wonder, then, that our founding documents, in many respects, reflect Smith’s central themes that were debated at the time: that government must not grow infinitely.It is really frustrating to me that aggressively hostile readings of things has become such a normal way of writing rebuttals in modern discourse. There is so much to criticize in how the government is run that we don't need to be wasting our time and energy rebutting things that haven't even been said.
by tpmoney - Their is nothing new to people warping the founders thoughts and word to whatever they want. Its a common tactic of conservative politicians to paint rosey understanding of the USAs founding that are nothing more the utopian. Its not surprising considering the founders are the perfect target. They are both deeply philosophical and contradiction laddened but also distant, from people who don't reflect on the current American culture. I'd argue though we have a broad disinterest in the principles of the founding at this moment. People are upset the current administration is engaged in nothing more than grift to the maximal amount.
I applaud people continuing to point out corruption. The only thing surprising about the article is that is hasn't been flagged yet
by xphos - "Freedom" is defined by who holds the microphone, but don't ignore who set up the stage.
The liberty he believes in is the one the one-way ratcheting mechanism of individual liberty, for the most powerful individuals that is.
And he'd be right in a liberal democracy because part of liberalism is a belief in an abstract equality among men where a billionaire is supposedly equal in rights to a minimum wage worker.
"When and where is this true?" you may ask. In theory is the answer.
But an analysis of the lived social conditions of the majority of the people in this country would require further categorization of its elements into class and the relationship to the means of production.
Again freedom for what class of people do you think he's talking about: the owners of our worlds infrastructue or the majority of us?
by Atlas667 - Sadly, economics is not yet a science, but still mostly a hodgepodge of philosophy, superstition, and politics, where the fragile beginnings of scientific inquiry and real science are regularly run over by louder, dumber voices shrieking about "free markets" (an oxymoron) and "supply side" (a bald rationalization for providing welfare to the wealthy). Millions of people know Adam Smith only by his "invisible hand" analogy, which appears only once in the entire book and in a completely different context from that which it is usually quoted---he was talking about the tendency of business to buy local because of familiarity, not making some broad claim about the self-regulation of markets.by vannevar
- > Sadly, economics is not yet a science,
Nor is there any visible attempt to make it a science.
> Millions of people know Adam Smith only by his "invisible hand" analogy, which appears only once in the entire book and in a completely different context... the tendency of business to buy local.
That's quite a stretch, I mean, it's your right to second-guess Smith as much as you like, and ascribe some "invisible" intent behind his writing, but the text doesn't support your view.
Anyone can read Book 4, Chap 2, where the paragraph in question appears. The whole chapter is full of incessant, obsessive ramblings against regulation in order to "prove" that self-serving, unregulated action always and automatically does better than any regulation motivated by care for the social good. Smith spells it out black on white in par. 4:
Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society
Then Smith uses this insinuation, is if it were a universal principle, to imply the "free trade" rabbit out of his hat - "Secondly, every individual who employs his capital in the support of domestic industry, necessarily endeavours so to direct that industry, that its produce may be of the greatest possible value".
> real science [is] run over by louder, dumber voices shrieking about "free markets" (an oxymoron)
Well, Smith was a free trader, and in that light, he claimed restrictions to free trade are the foundation of all other market regulations, which makes them bad by implication. Smith was a PR BS-generator.
Bk4, Ch 3, part 2 - "Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost _all the other regulations of commerce, are founded_ ... But that trade which, _without force or constraint_, is naturally and regularly carried on between _any two places_, is always advantageous."
by bigbadfeline - This was number one, I wish it still was. The founders railed against precisely the kind of aristocratic, authoritarian corruption this administration represents.by rjurney
- Is there someone who could be convinced by this article, but who doesn't already agree with it?
I'm discouraged that public discourse about ideas has become so partisan that it ends up being partisan to express an opinion that touches on the most important things that are happening.
- I'd hope someone who agreed with the ideas in the article would read it and revisit their opinions...