HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/anarchy/essays/schoolsucks/liberty.txt

Text File | 1996-04-27 | 16KB | 234 lines

    Liberty: Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville

    Both Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville agree that an individual is
the most qualified to make decisions affecting the sphere of the
individual as long as those decisions do not violate the law of justice.
>From this starting point, each theorist proposes a role of government
and comments on human nature and civil society. Smith focuses on
economic liberty and the ways in which government can repress this
liberty, to the detriment of society. De Tocqueville emphasizes
political liberty and the way that government can be organized to
promote political liberty, protect individual liberty, and promote civil
liberty.
    Adam Smith's theory makes a strong argument for the assertion that a
free market will provide overall good for society, but, as de
Tocqueville points out, it provides little or no protection for the
poor. Smith's picture of human nature given in The Theory of Moral
Sentiments suggests that people would do good and take care of the weak
because of characteristics of their nature. Unfortunately, this image
contrasts with the picture of the individual which emerges from his
economic argument in Wealth of Nations and is a generally unsatisfying
answer.
    In attempting to define liberty, Adam Smith is mostly concerned with
negative liberty, or freedom from constraint, especially market
constraints. According to him, in a free market, as long as they are not
fettered by government regulation, actions are guided toward the public
good as if by an invisible hand. Furthermore, the economic sphere is the
determining section of society. Therefore from his economic model, he
derives his argument for the best role of government and asserts that
the resultant society will be the best overall for civilization.
    Since he defines the individual as sovereign (within the laws of
justice), and he defines liberty as freedom from constraint, his
argument begins with the individual, defining a man's labor as the
foundation of all other property. From this it follows that the
disposition of one's labor, without harm to others, is an inviolable
right which the government should not restrict in any way (Smith 215).
He uses his economic theory to support his belief that this limitation
on government action creates the most overall good for society.
    First, he defines all prices as being determined by labor (Smith 175).
Since labor causes raw materials to have value, Smith asserts that labor
confers ownership, but when stock is used there must be something given
for the profits of the investors, so labor resolves itself into wages
and prices (185). The support for the free market lies in the way the
prices are determined and the inner workings of the market. The prices
ultimately come from the value of labor. A capitalist will want to
produce as much as possible, in order to make the greatest profit,
therefore his demand for labor will rise. As the demand for labor rises,
wages will rise. As more people begin working to meet the increased
demand for labor, production will rise, and prices will fall. Following
this argument, in a free market, everybody is working for his or her own
personal gain, but maximum production occurs, which increases overall
wealth and prosperity. If the government interferes by setting minimum
wages, charging prohibitive taxes, or regulating prices, it interrupts
the natural flow of the market. Therefore, Smith argues that the market
prices of wages and of goods should be regulated by the market rather
than by the government.
    Smith then identifies three classes of people who develop from
capitalism: laborers, landlords, and capitalists. Each of these groups
act purely out of self-interest, and for this reason Smith does not
think any of them will be able to effectively rule with the good of
society in mind. The laborers are incapable of comprehending "that the
interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the
society..." (Smith 226). The landlords are the most impartial of the
classes and therefore the least likely to use government for any plan or
project of their own, but they are "too often, not only ignorant, but
incapable of that application of mind which is necessary in order to
foresee and understand the consequences of any public regulation" (226).
By process of elimination, Smith settles on the capitalists as the most
fit to rule, but stipulates, "the proposal of any new law or regulation
of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to
with great precaution, and out never to be adopted till after having
been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but
with the most suspicious attention" (227).
    Due to the lack of a class which would be able to lead with society's
interests in mind and because the unfettered free market in which
everyone is selfishly motivated produces the most, Smith relegates to
government only the three tasks of the defense of the nation, the
administration of justice, and the maintenance of certain public works
(289). This plan will prevent too many unnecessary restrictions on
"perfect" liberty, or complete freedom from restraints, and will allow a
system of natural liberty to establish itself in which every man, as
long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free
to pursue his own interest his own way.
    This role of government also solves the impassable lack of information
problem that, according to Smith, is faced by any government which takes
the responsibility for superintending the industry of private people. No
government official could possibly account for all of the chains of
cause and effect, and no government can truly know what is in the best
interest of every individual.
    Furthermore, it is important to recognize that in Smith's theory, the
government is actually defending the rich against the poor. The poor,
according to Smith, are often driven by envy and need to invade the
possessions of the rich. "It is only under the shelter of the civil
magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired
by the labour of many years or perhaps of many successive generations,
can sleep a single night in security" (294). Note the assumption that
the rich are entitled to their wealth because it is acquired by hard
work either of the person or his family. Because of this, Smith
considers civil government a necessary institution.
    One objection to this view of government and to the economic reading in
general is that one of the duties of government is to protect the poor
from the tyranny of the rich. In fact, in Smith's economic perspective,
money demonstrates preferences. Therefore, people with more money are
able to influence the market much more than people with less, and would
therefore be less needing of government protection. It is the people
with less money who can least afford change and bad times. Thus, these
people are in the least position to combat unfair practices or to change
their position.
     Alexis de Tocqueville recognizes this fault in Smith's system. First,
laborer becomes more and more involved in his labors, and therefore more
focused on the small details for which he is responsible, while the
industrialist becomes increasingly interested in the larger workings of
the factory. In this way, the two classes become less alike and mobility
between them becomes more difficult. Finally, "the industrial
aristocracy of our day, when it has impoverished and brutalized the men
it uses, abandons them in time of crisis to public charity to feed them"
(de Tocqueville 558). In Smith's governmental plan, there are no
provisions for taking care of the poor when they are not taken care of
by the market system.
    In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith suggests that human nature
will turn the beneficence of the rich to the poor out of sympathy for
their condition (136), but this response does not offer strong enough
promise that the poor will be cared for when the market fails. One can
only hope that the de Tocqueville analysis is wrong and the laborers
will always make high enough wages. Yet in Wealth of Nations, Smith
says, "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least
be sufficient to maintain him," (197), but is later forced to admit that
when society is in decline, wages fall even below "what is barely enough
to enable [a laborer] to bring up a family, or to continue the race of
laborers" (226).
    It is the capitalists who are calculated to be the most qualified to
serve as government officials, it is the capitalists who have the most
control over the market through manipulation of their money, and in the
end it is still the capitalists who Smith thinks need to be protected
from the poor. This lack of provision for the laborer makes Smith's
system rather unsatisfying.
    Alexis de Tocqueville offers a more satisfying system stemming from the
same faith in individual sovereignty. Where Smith states, "Every
individual . . . can, in his local situation judge much better than any
statesman or lawgiver can do for him" (265), de Tocqueville says,
"Providence has given each individual the amount of reason necessary for
him to look after himself in matters of his own exclusive concern. That
is the great maxim on which civil and political society in the United
States rests..." (397) The phraseology of these similar arguments is
demonstrative if the different emphasis of the authors. Smith's phrase
inherently limits government whereas de Tocqueville's includes it in
government. By turning his focus to political society, de Tocqueville
highlights the role of positive liberty 5 in government and builds an
argument for the protection of political liberty and individual freedom,
which he considers to be built into aristocratic society, but easily
lost in democratic society.
    In defining liberty, de Tocqueville applauds the following definition
of freedom by Winthrop:
    "There is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty, which is the proper end
and object of authority: it is a liberty for that only which is just and
good; for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very
lives. . .This liberty is maintained in a way of subjection to
authority; and the authority set over you will in all administrations
for your good be quietly submitted unto, by all but such as have a
disposition to shake off the yoke, and lose their true liberty, by their
murmuring at the honour and power of authority" (46).
This definition emphasizes positive liberty, which is maintained through
subjection to the authorities which have liberty as their goal. Implicit
in this definition then is the assertion that government will has the
power to act in the name of society.
    In an aristocratic society, negative liberty in the form of freedom
from arbitrary control is built into the system. Also, for the
aristocrats, positive liberty in the form of ability to act as a group
exists. The question which de Tocqueville faces in describing democracy
is how to expand these liberties to include all people. Positive liberty
is opened to all people by extending the suffrage and electing a
representative government, but there are no structural barriers to
protect the negative liberties.
    Alexis de Tocqueville is especially concerned with the tendency towards
tyranny of the majority. He therefore examines the institutions in
American society which will balance the tendency of the majority to
overpower its opposition. One such system is that of strong local
government. De Tocqueville agrees with Smith that people should be
allowed to take care of their own affairs because they are closer to
them. He then extends his analysis beyond this to include the social
benefits of strong local government. "Local liberties . . . bring men
constantly into contact, . . . and force them to help one another"
(511). Such social benefits are the more important consideration for de
Tocqueville. If society can be maintained in a way which counteracts the
overpowering strength of the majority, liberty will continue.
    Unlike Smith, however, de Tocqueville does not think that this argument
for strong local government leads to the conclusion that federal
government should be extremely limited. In fact, de Tocqueville expects
the tasks of government to perpetually increase. This conclusion is
based on the assertion that men will be less and less able to produce
the bare necessities (515). Smith agrees with this statement but expects
the market to step in and provide all that is desired. De Tocqueville
does argue that the government must never wholly usurp the place of
private associations.
    Implicit in his criticism of Adam Smith's industrial economy, which
argued that the industrial aristocracy would abandon the poor to
government support, is the assertion that government will take
responsibility for the poor. De Tocqueville observes that in the United
States the framers of government had "a higher and more comprehensive
conception of the duties of society toward its members than had the
lawgivers of Europe at that time, and they imposed obligations upon it
which were still shirked elsewhere. There was a provision for the poor .
. ." (44). The phrases chosen demonstrate de Tocqueville's support for
the programs. While Adam Smith would argue that these provisions would
hinder the free market by redistributing income and interfering
taxation, de Tocqueville is clearly asserting that the duty of society
to its members does include obligations to protect the weaker members of
society.
    One of Smith's reasons that government should be limited is because
there is no group of people who will rule with the good of society in
mind. By turning the focus away from the individual or class of people
who will be the magistrates and towards the system of selection, de
Tocqueville makes a case for not needing to limit democratic government
as severely as Smith would like. "It is certainly not the elected
magistrate who makes the American democracy prosper, but the fact that
the magistrates are elected" (512). The people collectively will elect a
group of representatives who will have the power to make laws, but the
power of executing them will be left to the lower officials. "Often only
the goal to be aimed at is indicated to [the magistrates], and they are
left to choose their own means" (206). In this way, the power of
government is great, but the power of each individual to turn it to
personal gain is small.
    It is not the definitions of liberty offered by the two theorists which
are wholly incompatible, but rather the assertions about the workings of
society and the conclusions about the role of government. Adam Smith's
account provides a good argument for the power of the market and for a
laissez-faire governmental policy. Unfortunately, his theory fails to
account for the societal problems such as maintenance of the poor.
Alexis de Tocqueville's theory uses the same considerations of
individual rights and self-interested motives, but examines more closely
the societal institutions which can balance governmental action. He
therefore relegates a larger role to government which includes a duty to
take care of its members through legislation aimed at liberty.