Recovering Adam Smith\'s ethical economics Commentary

Recovering Adam Smith's ethical economics Commentary
The conditions of freedom and justice are vital and foundational for the commercial society (capitalism) which Adam Smith envisioned. He saw that under these conditions society could "endogenously produce a decent social order for coordinating moral and economic conduct without centralized direction or coercive moral policing by religious or secular authorities" (Wells). How did Smith think to attain these conditions? By coercive moral policing from authorities. Another disappointing ouroboros that falls short of the true source of freedom and justice: God.
Smith saw the success of mercantilism in its widening of the corporation model of towns in the feudal system to the national level, which increased efficiency gains proportional to the growth of the market. The downside was that "underling" ethics were also nationalized- along with the "impertinent jealousy of merchants and manufacturers", which led to the hijacking of the state apparatus to serve this nexus in the name of the common good. The eternal parasites from weren't exterminated by the emergence of the division of labor and the free market, they merely shapeshifted. We can extrapolate that globalization of our economy and government will continue on, as that is a more efficient system, but along with that, crony capitalism and greed will also be globalized. Perhaps the oppressed, like the American colonies will rise up in indignation at the parasitic policies and revolt against the self-serving power, if not with force then with the refusal to be complicit in their exploitation. Where will we get all of our cheaply made goods? Smith's answer to the spread and legitimization of moral corruption which will cause such a revolt is regulatory proposals intended to prevent systemic failures caused by unethical actions. These are "in some respect a violation of natural liberty" upon an order of citizens which are justified by the government's duty to protect "the security of the whole society" (WN II.ii.94), but this contradicts Smith's belief that "To hurt in any degree the interest of any one order of citizens, for no other purpose but to promote that of some other, is evidently contrary to that justice and equality of treatment which the sovereign owes to all the different orders of his subjects" (WN IV.viii.30). Wells says from Smith's perspective that it is "insufferable impertinence of a government (or any other body) to take it upon itself to manage people's affairs on their behalf."

Smith here is called a pragmatist, not concerned with what a perfect society might look like but working with what we have. Smith doubted that moral excellence would thrive in his better society because with the greater opportunity to live an excellent life came material opportunities, and "An augmentation of fortune is the means by which the greater part of men propose and wish to better their condition. It is the means the most vulgar and the most obvious". So instead of having a small group of self-interested oppressors, you get a whole society of self-interested micro-oppressors, using whatever power/leverage they have to get more. This is the root of the problem, and trying to regulate it legally will only create a massive monster in the hands of those with the most power. The market-system provides the incentive of profit to producers to adjust their output to the demand for goods- but why can't the incentive be the good of others, which is really their own good? Again, here is the assumption that human incentives can't change. The real institution that needs to be reformed, the inner one, is ignored. It's been like this from the beginning, and so it will be forevermore, so let's try to deal with it, the unbeliever says, but "See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?" says the Lord. Economics without faith is dead.







Dennis Zyalik