found via Instapundit - a
2001 article talking about the legacy of Adam Smith and "A Wealth of Nations"
In her book -- which is not easy reading at the beach but nonetheless provides unique insights into Smith's thinking --Ms. Rothschild argues that Smith has been reinvented as a narrow, unyielding defender of unfettered free enterprise. Yes, he emphasized the motivating force of self-interest and gains from free trade, but he also viewed freedom in a broader sense than economic freedom and championed the disadvantaged.
This is the same point that I constantly try and make about Hayek. Yes, Hayek was against government over-regulation and for "economic freedom" but what he was really for was the maximum personal liberty for everyone and he specifically endorsed both welfare and universal health care (in both "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Constitution of Liberty") and was against laissez-faire capitalism:
Probably nothing has done so much harm to the [libertarian] cause as the
wooden insistence of some [libertarians] on certain rough rules of
thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire.
and
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level
of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed
to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of
food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there
any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive
system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life
against which few can make adequate provision
Nuance - it's a bitch.
No comments:
Post a Comment