|
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.
|
|
|
(0 vote)