Message from discussion
To David Friedman: Antitrust
From: David Friedman <D...@best.com>
Subject: Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust
Date: 1998/05/12
Message-ID: <DDFr-1105982256220001@ddfr.vip.best.com>
X-Deja-AN: 352808597
Approved: tskir...@uiuc.edu
References: <199805120238.TAA21501@cybere.creative.net>
X-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:55:50 -0700
X-Email-Submissions-To: tskirvin+hpom...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Path: DDFr
X-Submissions-To: tskirvin+...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Organization: Santa Clara University
Originator: tskir...@alpha.math.uiuc.edu
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ddfr.vip.best.com
X-Trace: 894952138 2463 (none) 206.86.0.12
Organization: Auto-Moderation Bot, v0.99a
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP humanities.philosophy.objectivism iQCVAwUBNVfi04twLG25AQfZAQHLRQP+N1wW+53oc12i1BmnOt1eDf/Cbm+5Ijyx JLhhfbfeWbmiziiZMt/LsSYE0/hG+VmIqb5is2UQSmPV/wqS4hjseFT7OIoIxZwZ max8nxw1xpIB/KhyQoh7Gnz9CG7pvYFoWE/lrDY5ZW+nanhBk6T7AgWH/fxUfdb8 5PyqpxxWkLU= =0sMM
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
In article <199805120238.TAA21...@cybere.creative.net>, "Vincent Cook"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>Gordon Sollars wrote:
>A monopoly of the mint was also a monopoly over the production of
>the commodity used as bank reserves and as the means for settling
>international transactions.
Unless I am mistaken, you have still nowhere cited Smith calling for a
monopoly of the mint--as opposed to simply taking it for granted that
government was doing it, as in fact it was.
>>Is there any evidence that the French economists you cite objected to the
>>government minting of coins?
>
>Not that I know of, but there is no evidence that they would have objected
>to a privatization of the mint either.
Cantillon explicitly discusses the reasons for having a government mint,
in a quote I have already posted. He does not explicitly say that private
mints should be illegal--but neither, so far as I know, does Smith. As far
as I can tell, neither of them considered the question.
>The point is that, unlike Smith,
>the Physiocrats weren't demarcating whole areas of the economy as
>being off-limits to private activity, so it is quite plausible to
>infer from their theories that they would have reduced the state to
>near-Randian levels, financially supported by a single tax on land.
As I have already pointed out, Cantillon, at least, comes across as a
thorough statist. He is also quite explicitly in favor of government
regulation of trade, aimed at bringing silver into the country. Your
"quite plausible" is pure fantasy, at least so far as he is concerned.
And what are the "whole areas of the economy" that Smith market as
off-limits to private activity? Not education. Not the issuance of bank
notes. Not highways or canals. Can you give me a list?
>>Your Smith quote says nothing about *public* education. I'm curious; did
>>your quote come from the Rothbard book you mentioned?
>Yes. Rothbard implies that the context of this quote involved the
>idea that the state has to inculcate obedience in order to get
>sufficient cannon fodder.
You are now telling us something about Rothbard, not something about
Smith. There is a large gap between "cannon fodder" and people who are
"are . . . less apt to be misled into any wanton or unnecessary
opposition to the measures of government." If anything, the implication
of the passage is they Smith is in favor of opposition to the measures of
government--when necessary. Hence the qualifications.
>>> Turgot's hard-core libertarian attitudes can be discerned from this
>>> passage from _Plan for a Paper on Taxation in General_:
You don't think it a slight stretch to accuse Smith of selling out because
he was a customs official, and then regard Turgot as a hard core
libertarian?
In another post, Vincent writes:
>I am always happy to do more research on questions such as this, but you
>really ought to aspire to greater things than just provoking me to read
>more. First of all, if it is the case that (1) my analysis and quotes were
>derived from Rothbard, and (2) these analyses and quotes are
>misrepresentative of Cantillon, Smith, et al.; then it stands to reason
>that Rothbard would be responsible for any such misrepresentations. Why
>then are you accusing me of being selective, etc.?
I didn't accuse you of being selective; I accused you of illustrating your
points with selective quotes. Obviously Rothbard was the one who selected
them.
>I am simply putting
>forward the data I have.
While not bothering to get any additional data. _The Wealth of Nations_ is
not a hard book to find, and it is quite enjoyable to read.
>Unfortunately, it appears that your obvious
>irritation with Rothbard is coloring your responses to me.
You are stating, with great confidence, conclusions that are not your
own--and you did not put your statements in the form "Rothbard claims
that." I suggest that before you make statements about Smith, you ought to
read him--and if you do so, you will discover that the statements you are
making wholly misrepresent the tone of the book.
>Second of all, does one misrepresentation (assuming that is what it is)
>justify another? If by your own admission you are making Cantillon sound
>worse than he really is, then it appears that you are engaging in an
>extended rhetorical diversion which doesn't address the main question of
>whether or not the French invented economics, brought it to prominence, and
>used it to support laissez-faire policy prescriptions before Smith.
1. It wasn't a misrepresentation precisely because I warned the reader
that I was selecting my quotes. Part of my point was to demonstrate what
could be done by that technique.
2. Cantillon does not use economics to support consistently laissez-faire
policy prescriptions before Smith.
3. Of course Smith had predecessors--that isn't news. Smith himself
discusses the physiocrats at some length, and politely. Near the beginning
of the lecture notes I provided my students for the course in History of
Thought I have been teaching this quarter, I wrote (about Smith):
1. The man who first assembled economics, although there were precursors.
Judging by Cantillon (I haven't yet gotten to Turgot), that statement is
accurate; the Essai is not comparable to _The Wealth of Nations_, although
it contains a noticeable number of the ideas in the latter book, as well
as at least one important idea that I don't think Smith has, and some
errors that Smith either does not make or energetically attacks.
>>1. Am I correct in believing that you have read neither Smith nor
>>Cantillon, and are simply relying on Rothbard's hatchet job?
>This is a loaded question. I am indeed relying on Rothbard's work, but so
>far you have given me little reason to doubt anything he wrote except
>possibly for the bit about the specie-flow. On the other hand, if by your
>own admission you are making Cantillon look worse than he really is, and
>concede that Cantillon anticipates Smith in various important ways,
>then you seem to be hinting that Rothbard might actually be onto
>something.
>Let me put this question to you then: given your reading of Cantillon
>as he really is, do you think he was just another mercantilist hack,
>or do you think he made serious contributions to founding economics
>as a distinct intellectual discipline?
I don't think the mercantilists were hacks. I think Cantillon either made
a serious contribution to economics, or is reflecting the ideas of others
who did. That doesn't surprise me, and is certainly not original with
Rothbard. Long before our exchange, Cantillon was one of the people I had
a mental note to read when I got around to it.
>Seriously David, you have no business strongly denouncing Rothbard's work
>as a "hatchet job" until you can conclusively show that Rothbard
>intentionally got it wrong.
>I take it that so far you have not read Rothbard's book yourself and
>that you have skimmed exactly one of the original sources relating to
>the early French economists he cites. If this is the case, then I
>rather doubt that you are in a position to strongly challenge
>Rothbard's thesis yet, let alone demonstrate that his errors were
>dishonest.
1. I have only skimmed Cantillon, but I know Smith quite well. Assuming
you have accurately represented Rothbard, his remarks on Smith are a
hatchet job. That is consistent with what I know of Rothbard from other
work, and I cannot see any good reason why you would have misrepresented
him in such a way.
2. You were the one who claimed, I presume on the basis of Rothbard, that
Cantillon was a free trader--which is inconsistent with the clear words of
the Essai, as I have pointed out.
>>2. In light of the quotes I have just offered, are you prepared to either
>>revise your position or go read Cantillon for yourself (and Smith) and
>>then revise it accordingly?
>
>I am willing to read Cantillon and reach my own conclusions,
But not to read Smith?
> but I am not
>sure if I really want to continue this sort of discussion with you. What
>you are suggesting by posing such questions is the insinuation that I
>am impervious to whatever evidence you present and that my reliance
>on Rothbard as a secondary source somehow calls my motives into
>question. Frankly, I find that pretty insulting.
Your motives aren't at issue. What I am implying is that you ought not to
make confident assertions based solely on a secondary source--especially a
secondary source by someone who quite obviously has an axe to grind.
I had an exchange with Jimbo over Rand earlier in this thread. I posted
something along the lines of "X says Rand says Y. Y is wrong. Will someone
confirm that Rand really said Y. If she did, isn't that a reason to
question her judgement?" Jimbo called me to task for irresponsibly
suggesting Rand believed something without checking her own words.
I think Jimbo was wrong, and said so. But he would have been right if I
had stated, as a fact, "Rand held view Y." He would have been even more
right if I had stated it, and omitted to mention that X, who was my sole
source for the assertion, made it in the process of attacking Rand. That
is what you did--with Smith substituted for Rand, and Rothbard as X.
I'm not attacking your motives--I am attacking the truth of what you were
asserting (second hand from Rothbard) and your judgement in asserting it
as fact without making any effort to check it first.
A query for you--don't bother to answer it if you don't want to. If, after
reading Smith and Cantillon (and, hopefully, Turgot), you conclude that
the Rothbard book was a hatchet job, will you
A. Revise your opinions of this exchange and ...
B. Revise your opinion of Rothbard?
--
David Friedman
D...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
|
