| |
humanities.philosophy.objectivism |
In article <199805080606.XAA29...@cybere.creative.net>, > I'm talking about the minting of coins, not the issuance of Is there any evidence that the French economists you cite objected to the > "An instructed and intelligent people besides are always more decent "Domestic education is the institution of nature; Your Smith quote says nothing about *public* education. I'm curious; did > "It seems that Public Finance, like a greedy monster, has been lying Gordon Sollars -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
"Vincent Cook" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> paper currency. The world used gold and silver
> coins as the standard money back in those days.
banks in fact had a well developed system of bank-notes. Smith held that it
was proper to restrict the notes to "large" amounts, (I think) because those
making large transactions would be better able to judge the reliability of
the bank behind the notes. The "poor" would use coin. Perhaps for this bit
of paternalism Smith stands condemned.
government minting of coins?
> support of public education:
> and orderly than an ignorant and stupid one. They feel themselves,
> each individuallly, more respectable, and more likely to obtain the
> respect of their lawful superiors, and they are therefore more
> disposed to respect those superiors. They are . . . less apt to be
> misled into any wanton or unnecessary opposition to the measures of
> government."
public education, the contrivance of man. It is
surely unnecessary to say, which is likely to be the wisest."
your quote come from the Rothbard book you mentioned?
> passage from _Plan for a Paper on Taxation in General_:
> in wait for the entire wealth of the people."
French government in particular? That is, if Turgot had been in Scotland and
Smith in France, what differences might we have seen in their writings?
gsoll...@virginia.edu
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading