[Karl_Bonner_1982]

Many conservatives love to flaunt the image of Adam Smith in defense of their economic philosophy. But from what I've learned, Smith was no fan of dog-eat-dog economics. His THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS argues that social standards of decency and honesty are needed to prevent self-will from going too far and creating a cruel society. And Smith even feared the emergence of concentrated business interests. In fact his "worst nightmare" was an economy controlled by a few ultra-powerful business conglomerates with total power over the government and the citizenry.

Indeed most liberals today, who generally support competitive capitalism but not monopolies and corporate power, sound a lot like Smith did over 200 years ago. The whole idea of an economy for the many and not the few resonates perfectly with modern liberal philosophy. While today's liberals are not as hands-off as they were two centuries ago the goals for society are still the same.

So why have American conservatives been so good at co-opting Smith for their own agendas?

[RonPaulalways]

Smith believed in laissez faire:

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.

He coined the term "invisible hand". He believed that the pursuit of simple self-interest is what developed society, not charity and collectivism:

"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 advantages."

***

"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."

And Smith even feared the emergence of concentrated business interests. In fact his "worst nightmare" was an economy controlled by a few ultra-powerful business conglomerates with total power over the government and the citizenry.

The policies that "liberals" support, things like the Federal Reserve, massive government bureaucracies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and calcifying regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, ensure that powerful, politically connected, conglomerates control the economy.

[Okonkwo]

He coined the term "invisible hand".

He didn't. The term itself appears exactly once in Wealth of Nations.
Portraying Adam Smith as ardent laissez-faire advocate is stretching it, especially when you consider the historic circumstances of his work.

[RonPaulalways]

He did. And he was an ardent laissez faire advocate. He opposed protectionist policies, regulations and high taxes.

[Paradigm]

He did. And he was an ardent laissez faire advocate. He opposed protectionist policies, regulations and high taxes.

He also warned against the rise of corporations, and suggested it might be a good idea for the rich to pay more than their share of wealth in taxes.

[RonPaulalways]

He didn't like corporations because he believed they were inefficient, not because he thought they would become too powerful:

"The directors of such companies ... being the managers rather of other people's money rather than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which [they would] watch over their own,"

I'm not aware of his stance calling for higher taxes on the rich, but I do know he thought low taxes and minimal government intervention was preferable for an economy. He believed that the rich through their self-interested actions, would effectively distribute wealth to the poor in the most efficient manner possible. He was a very very strong supporter of laissez faire.

If any one wants to read his books, here they are:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html

[Okonkwo]

He did.

I just told you why he did not. He used the term exactly once in his Wealth of the Nations and that is in a rather peculiar context.
Your constant portrayal of him as an ardent supporter of libertarianism stems from ignoring the historical circumstances of his time and his writing.

When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

etc.

But there's no use in arguing with you people anyway.

[Ombrageux]

To say Smith advocated free trade is true enough. It would hard not to be an advocate of it in the era of mercantilism.

[Okonkwo]

It would hard not to be an advocate of it in the era of mercantilism.

Precisely. He was free-trade in the sense of anti-mercantilism.
Anything else (and that includes portraying him as libertarian) is just speculation.

[RonPaulalways]

Every thing he wrote contradicts your claim. He was a libertarian from an economic standpoint, as libertarianism is defined today.

I just told you why he did not. He used the term exactly once in his Wealth of the Nations and that is in a rather peculiar context.

You did NOT tell me why he did not, you only said that he used the term once. How does this mean he didn't coin the term? He was the first one to use the term. He coined it.

When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.

The context that he wrote it in was the following:

Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.

Thus he's saying that since it's the powerful (masters) that have influence (counsel) with the government, when regulations are in favor of workmen, they are just and equitable.

He lists as an example of a just regulation:

Thus the law which obliges the masters in several different trades to pay their workmen in money and not in goods, is quite just and equitable.*91 It imposes no real hardship upon the masters. It only obliges them to pay that value in money, which they pretended to pay, but did not always really pay, in goods.

^ This is a very light regulation, that he favors mostly as an anti-fraud measure (to ensure that 'masters' do indeed pay their workers). This is the single instance of him saying any thing positive about a regulation

Then he follows up, in the next page, with his regular anti-regulation, laissez faire arguments, e.g.:

In ancient times too it was usual to attempt to regulate the profits of merchants and other dealers, by rating the price both of provisions and other goods. The assize of bread is, so far as I know, the only remnant of this ancient usage. Where there is an exclusive corporation, it may perhaps be proper to regulate the price of the first necessary of life. But where there is none, the competition will regulate it much better than any assize.

The whole book is filled with arguments saying that laissez faire is better. This one example you cited is in a special context, and does not follow with his general arguments.

I can give you dozens upon dozens of examples of him touting laissez faire arguments against regulations.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Let's look at this statement in context:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

He was making a moral judgment that putting a tax on house-rents was better because it would fall heavier on the rich who have luxurious houses. It was an after thought, not a highly-developed thesis arguing for massive wealth redistribution schemes, or graduated income taxes or any thing like that.

This is the only instance where he shows any sort of inclination to disproportionate taxation on the rich.

Throughout his book, he rails against taxes:

To be left to accommodate, as well as they could, their industry to their situation, and to find out those employments in which, notwithstanding their unfavourable circumstances, they might have some advantage either in the home or in the foreign market, is what in both cases would evidently be most for their advantage. To lay a new tax upon them, because they are already overburdened with taxes, and because they already pay too dear for the necessaries of life, to make them likewise pay too dear for the greater part of other commodities, is certainly a most absurd way of making amends.
IV.2.36

Such taxes, when they have grown up to a certain height, are a curse equal to the barrenness of the earth and the inclemency of the heavens; and yet it is in the richest and most industrious countries that they have been most generally imposed. No other countries could support so great a disorder. As the strongest bodies only can live and enjoy health under an unwholesome regimen, so the nations only that in every sort of industry have the greatest natural and acquired advantages can subsist and prosper under such taxes. Holland is the country in Europe in which they abound most, and which from peculiar circumstances continues to prosper, not by means of them, as has been most absurdly supposed, but in spite of them.

He would definitely not support the 40% income tax.

[Okonkwo]

Every thing he wrote contradicts your claim. He was a libertarian from an economic standpoint, as libertarianism is defined today.

Have you read the two quotes I posted above? He says regulation can be good and the rich should be taxed. That doesn't sound like Ron Paul at all.

[RonPaulalways]

Please see my edit, I address them.