| Political and Economic Thought | ||
|
Introduction Human Nature Knowledge and Education The Professions Political and Economic Thought Index by Topic Basic Timeline Publication Timeline Return to Main Page |
Political Institutions It should be noted that that the sociopolitical view that has held until modern times was largely constructed during the Scottish Enlightenment, since it had a direct influence in the democratic thought of the United States, and from there this influence spread to the other democracies in the Western hemisphere. There is evidence that Scottish moral philosophy texts were used in some of the early colleges of the United States.[1] Hutcheson establishes the essential need for political organization: 'Tis never for itself agreeable to any one to have his actions subject to the direction of others, or that they should have any power over his goods or his life. Men must have first observed some dangers or miseries attending a state of anarchy to be much greater, than any inconveniencies to be feared from submitting their affairs along with others to the direction of certain governors or councils concerned in the safety of all: and then they would begin to desire a political constitution for their own safety and advantage, as well as for the general good…[2]
Given the need for government, how should it be organized so as to best achieve its purposes? All of our thinkers acknowledge the ideal values of democracy or at least public participation, but in the end they favor the constitutional monarchy that they are familiar with, as Ferguson remarks: The history of mankind has confirmed our conjecture in this matter: It has abundantly shown, in the instance of republican governments, that the attainments of knowledge, ability, and public virtue, are proportioned to the concern which numbers are permitted to take, in the affairs of the community; and to the exertion of ingenuity and public spirit, which they have occasion to make in national counsels, in offices of state, or public services of any sort.[3] In the result of this natural or instinctive course of things, small states are inclined to democracy, because a great proportion of the people is easily and frequently assembled. In states of greater extent, the nobles, or select class of the people, lay hold of the government, because they have leisure to attend to it, and are easily convened. In societies of every description, as often as men have consulted and have occasion to act in a body, there is required some undivided authority, of which the first and simplest form is that which is conceived in the person of a king or a prince.[4] Political Leadership Turnbull and Hutcheson provide very positive exhortations about good citizenship and preserving political institutions: That model or constitution of society must be the best which best protects and encourages well-employed industry: And those to whom we owe good models of civil government, and all the political knowledge necessary to found and preserve well-regulated societies... Those are the great souls to whom mankind are under the highest obligations.—Those are the true heroes to whom eternal glory is due. Those truly great men having studied human nature and human affairs, knew human happiness must be the effect of human industry skilfully and benevolently employed, and how the spirit of such industry must be supported and promoted; what causes tend to abate or corrupt it, and by what methods these ought to be removed or checked.[Turnbull, 5] A good man's heart will always be zealous for the interest of any innocent association for a public interest , in which, by the Divine Providence, he is engaged; and will look upon this situation of his fortunes as the voice of God directing him to that part of his fellows who should be more peculiarly the object of his affectionate concern. And he will always remember, that in any tolerable constitution, he and his fellow-subjects owe innumerable advantages to the civil policy, to the laws, and to the whole body; even all their civilized education, their safety, their continual protection from innumerable injuries, and almost all accommodations and pleasures of life. They ought therefore to study the preservation and improvement of this constitution, and the general interest of this body, of which Divine Providence has made them a part, and recommended it to their zeal by all the generous principles in their soul.[Hutcheson, 6] The Functions of Government Hutcheson outlines the responsibilities of government, which continue to be the primary political functions to this day: 1. That of directing the actions of the subjects for the common good by laws requiring and rewarding whatever is requisite for this end, and prohibiting the contrary by penalties; determining and limiting more precisely the several rights of men, appointing proper methods for transferring or conveying them, as the general interest may require, and even limiting their use of them for the same general purpose. 2. Another power of the same class is that of appointing in what manner and what proportion each one shall contribute toward the public expenses out of his private fortune by paying taxes, tribute, or customs, as the state of the people will admit. 3. The power of jurisdiction civil and criminal in deciding all controversies among subjects about their rights by applying the general laws to them, and executing the penalties of the laws upon such as are guilty of crimes which disturb the peace of the slate… 4- The powers to be exercised toward foreigners are these two; the first, that of making war for defense of the state, and for this purpose arming and training the subjects to military service, and appointing proper officers to conduct them. And the second, that of making treaties, whether such as fix the terms of peace after a war, or such as may procure allies and confederates to assist in it. These powers must necessarily be committed to governors in every civil slate, and they hold them in that extent which the original constitution or the fundamental laws have appointed. [7] Human Rights Since citizens lose some of their independence in being subject to a government, they expect that in return, the state will respect and safeguard their fundamental social rights. Hutcheson calls these perfect rights, but he also discusses other important rights that are more in the nature of moral obligations, such as charity: [Perfect rights] ...such as every innocent man has to his life; to a good name; to the integrity and soundness of his body; to the acquisitions of his honest industry; to act according to his own choice within the limits of the law of nature; this right we call natural liberty, of which liberty of conscience is not only an essential but an unalienable branch. Society cannot subsist unless these rights are sacred.[8] Imperfect rights or claims are sometimes indeed of the greatest consequence to the happiness and ornament of society, and our obligations to maintain them, and to perform to others what they thus claim, may be very sacred: yet they are of such a nature that greater evils would ensue in society from making them matters of compulsion, than from leaving them free to each one's honour and conscience to comply with them or not... Yet the boundaries between perfect and imperfect rights are not always easily seen...[9] The Formalization of Economics Perhaps the best known contribution of the Scottish Enlightenment is the formalization of economics as a discipline. Adam Smith is rightly acknowledged as the "father of modern economics," and his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is considered to be the foundational text of the discipline. While concentrating on this achievement, the legacy of Smith's teacher Francis Hutcheson will also be briefly discussed. It should be noted that both of these teachers presented topics related to economics in their moral philosophy classes, and Smith's book probably initiated out of his teaching experience on this subject. Specialization and Industrialization Our period saw the birth of the Industrial Revolution, propelled by the intensive use of machinery in production, but as Adam Smith observed, organized specialization was a prerequisite to this development: "invention of all those machines by which labour is so much facilitated and abridged, seems to have been originally owing to the division of labour."[10] Specialization and exchange is a basic element of human civilization, as noted in Hutcheson's lectures:
But Adam Smith was the first to extensively analyze the process: The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour... owing to three different circumstances: First, the improvement of the dexterity of the workman necessarily increases the quantity of the work he can perform; and the division of labour, by reducing every man's business to some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life, necessarily increases very much the dexterity of the workman. Secondly, the advantage which is gained by saving the time commonly lost in passing from one sort of work to another, is much greater than we should at first view be apt to imagine it…. Thirdly, and lastly, every body must be sensible how much labour is facilitated and abridged by the application of proper machinery…[12] Every workman has a great quantity of his own work to dispose of beyond what he himself has occasion for; and every other workman being exactly in the same situation, he is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods for a great quantity, or, what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great quantity of theirs.[13] But to make the process of extensive exchange work, the markets must be large enough,[14] and this requires efficient transportation, which was supported by improving technology and the growing British Empire. Labor and Wages In discussing the distribution of the wealth of a nation, Adam Smith discusses the roles played by those who own resources as capital for production, and those that labor. He would let the same forces of supply and demand regulate the negotiated value of each contribution and therefore the share of the product revenues that is provided to laborers: What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the Wages of labour. [15] But the negotiating powers of capital owners and laborers are very different: A landlord, a farmer, a matter manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.[16] But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is however a certain rate, below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour. A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.[17] The above statements seems to treat laborers as nothing more than economic components, without reflecting on the human hardship of very low wages, which has caused modern societies to prescribe minimum wages. But in the following statement, Smith shows more human concern or social sensitivity: Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.[18] [1] Douglas Sloan, The Scottish Enlightenment and the American College Ideal (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1971), 122-138. [2] Francis Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy (Glasgow: A Foulis, 1755), Vol. 2, 212-213. [3] Adam Ferguson, Principles of Moral and Political Science (Edinburgh: W. Creech, 1792),Vol. I, 266. [4] Ibid., 259. [5] George Turnbull, Observations Upon Liberal Education (London: A. Millar, 1742), 191. [6] Francis Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy Vol. 2, 376. [7] Francis Hutcheson, A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy (Glasgow: Robert and Andrew Foulis, 1753), [8] Francis Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy Vol. 2, 257-258. [9] Francis Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy Vol. 2, 213. [10] Adam Smith, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776), in The Works of Adam Smith (London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1812) Vol II, 14 [Book 1, Chapter 1]. [11] Francis Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy (Glasgow: A Foulis, 1755), Vol 1, 328-329. [12] Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations" Vol 1, 12-14 [Book 1, Chapter 1]. [13] Ibid., 16-17. [14] Ibid., 26-28 [Book 1, Chapter 3]. [15] Ibid., 99 [Book 1, Chapter 8]. [16] Ibid., 100. [17] Ibid., 102. [18] Ibid., 118 [Book 1, Chapter 9]. | |