Adam Smith (1723–1790) revolutionized the perception of self-interest; basing his doctrine on third-party approbation. Unlike the Federalists, like James Madison (1751–1836) and John Adams (1735–1826), Adam Smith believed that self-interest was essential to invoke a passion within man, allowing him to place his self-directed actions in a position to better serve his community; thus ensuring commonwealth. To achieve this, Smith implemented an impartial spectator to judge the virtue of the effect of man’s actions (Cropsey, J.; Strauss, L., p. 904).
Adam Smith believed nature to be an external force of influence—invoking delusional progression among men, powered by passion, (Cropsey, J.; Strauss, L., p. 909). Smith thence presented his political philosophy as an apportioned dualism; namely ethics or jurisprudence. But a virtuous life could only be sought through ethics, not jurisprudence; as only ethics allowed for nature’s fine-tuning adjustments to invigorate man’s sentiments and sympathy towards approbation and disapprobation. Smith’s doctrine held that a successful government lies contingent on 1) emancipated men; 2) mild government; and 3) the free pursuit of happiness according to men’s desires. Thus, a delusional passion could only be incurred by man’s sympathy, alongside an imagined satisfaction upon the Agent’s very consideration. This state of present discontentment willingly exchanged for intangible illusory idealism; begets man’s [delusional] progression; whereby the resulting effect—the Patient; is historicized as glory by its victors. Conversely, Smith saw justice as often forced, catering to the demands of the afflicted. therefore Smithian political theory depicted justice to be a malevolent and disingenuous unnatural product of jurisprudence, an artificial pseudo-authority. Ethics produced far more value than jurisprudence, as virtue itself is contingent on third-party adjudication of approbation given by an impartial spectator.
Adam Smith’s Political Theory
Adam Smith believed that passion arose sympathy and sentiment—the Agent, or cause; producing an effect, known as the Patient; (Cropsey, J; Strauss, L., p. 900). Thus, virtue is contingent on approbation judged by an impartial spectator. Smith considered sympathy as the criterion of propriety and merit, contending that passionate delusion drove men to greatness. Thus, the individual was integral to the community, for a strengthened particular could ensure the total functionality of the collective. (Cropsey, J.; Strauss, L., pp. 901, 902).
Adam Smith and the Founders agreed that man was inherently powered by self-interest; but, Smith and the Founders disagreed on the merit of man’s self-interest. Madison and the Federalists feared factious contentious within the states, weakening the nation; positioning the national government in a state of vulnerability. Smith, however, believed that man when left alone to pursue his natural desires, he would himself produce societal contribution. Smith credited nature’s interactive influence over man. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) recognized a similar external force—Fortuna who would influence detriment over the will of men, yet bolster desire to overtake her power with their own. Smith believed that man needed one another to ensure a functional polity; thereby writing that “[m]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only, (Haggarty, J., Loc. 600). A man without individual value is worthless to a nation in need of civic reverence. The Apostle Paul reminds us; “[d]on’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others,” (1 Corinthians 10:24; NLT). Paul supports this eternal decree, providing a reminder for posterity; scribing, “[f]or ‘the earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it,’” (1 Corinthians 10:26; NLT). This concise value is often contorted and manipulated to suit the needs of the one less inclined to worship God during times of success yet in the ebb of disaster he finds himself exalting his needs above others from the detriment of uncertainty for his own fate.
Smith wrote that man individually acts in his own interest; thereby resolving to an advantageous society. The particular passions of the individual led to a flourishing society whereby each member committed themselves willingly to a cumulative effort. Specifically, Smith wrote that, “[e]very individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society,” (Haggarty, J., Loc. 600). John Adams contended in contrast that “[t]hese vices are so much the more dangerous and pernicious for the virtues with which they may be accompanied in the same character, and with so much the more watchful jealousy to be guarded against,” (Adams, J., Loc. 720).
The Anti-Federalists
Anti-Federalist Melancton Smith (1744–1798) wrote that “I am very clearly of opinion, that the evils we sustain, merely on account of the defects of the confederation, are but as a feather in the balance against a mountain, compared with those which would, infallibly, be the result of the loss of general liberty, and that happiness men enjoy under a frugal, free, and mild government,” (Smith, M., Loc. 3527). Adam Smith enumerated existentialist perspective centuries before Albert Camus (1913–1960) popularized the term. Smith wrote on absurdism that, “[n]othing can be more absurd . . . than to imagine that men in general should work less when they work for themselves, than when they work for other people,” (Haggarty, J., Loc. 588, 600). Smith added that “[t]he common proverbial maxims of prudence, being founded in universal experience, are perhaps the best general rules which can be given about it. To affect, however, a very strict and literal adherence to them, would evidently be the most absurd and ridiculous pedantry,” (Haggarty, J., Loc. 373). Smith observed the ridiculous behavior of committing total adherence to temporal collective maxims and laws, to the extent the individual loses his own will; thereby eliminating his ability to consider personal value negating engagement in necessary contributions to polity.
The Federalist platform operated on an inversion of Smith’s doctrine, without considering the influence of his work in their Constitutional considerations. But the Anti-Federalists held a similar perspective to Smith; Thomas Jefferson assured the nation during his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1805, that “I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice; but the weakness of human nature, and the limits of my own understanding, will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests,” (Jefferson, T., p. 742). Jefferson viewed himself to the same account Smith contended; converse to the Federalists, writing of his rivalry between the Federalists that his political discourse invoked no imposition to the commonwealth; writing, “[t]he pain was for [Alexander] Hamilton and myself, but the public experienced no inconvenience,” (Jefferson, T., p. 4595). Smith and Jefferson both believed that the individual had to exercise self-regulation; and be given the liberty to achieve this; moreover, each presupposed the equality of man.
The Federalists
Publius’s James Madison believed that pure self-interest would lead to anarchy and chaos. Madison therefore bore reverence for Federalist doctrine; id est a modular, yet centralized Leviathan; whilst limited in power. Yet, Madison understood that some form of interest was required—specifically, interests found common among men. In the Federalist No. 10, Madison contends that “[a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert, results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual.” James Madison warned that individualism and self-interest would lead to competing factions; writing, “[w]e have seen the necessity of the union…and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own,” (Madison, J., Loc. 2446).
Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804) warned in the Federalist No. 15 of “an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations.” Hamilton expounded, “[f]rom this spirit it happens, that in every political association which is formed upon the principle of uniting in a common interest a number of lesser sovereignties, there will be found a kind of eccentric tendency in the subordinate or inferior orbs, by the operation of which there will be a perpetual effort in each to fly off from the common centre.” Hamilton cited the need for a powerful government; dismissing the genesis of self-interest to be “in the love of power”; writing, “[p]ower controled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controled or abridged,” (Hamilton, A., Loc. 2641).
George Washington (1732–1799) believed equality to be necessarily superior to liberty, writing “[i]n the adoption of any measure for general operation, Individuals may, and will suffer; but in the case complain’d of, the matter may, I think, be answered by propounding a few questions,” (Washington, G., pp. 129, 130). Washington added that “I can foresee no evil greater than disunion,” (Washington, G., p. 402).
Alexis de Tocqueville
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) believed that Americans mitigated potential problems by collective preclusion; thereby invoking self-abstention from vices foreseen to invoke national detriment. Mar[t,v]in Zetterbaum (1924–1996) wrote that “Tocqueville insists it is ‘the best suited of all philosophical theories to the wants of the men of our time,’” (Zetterbaum, M., Strauss, L., p. 1100). Zetterbaum adds that, “[t]he possibility of motivating the many by appeals to self-sacrifice or to the inherent attractiveness of virtue vanishes with the destruction of the feudal system and, with it, of the belief in authority and of the dignity of nonmaterial ends. Under conditions of equality, private interest becomes the principal if not the only spring of human action. Private interest, Tocqueville affirms, is ‘the only immutable point in the human heart,’” (Strauss, L., p. 1100).
Moreover, Tocqueville believed that “[t]he taste which men have for liberty and that which they feel for equality are, in fact, two different things; and I am not afraid to add that among democratic nations they are two unequal things …[f]reedom has appeared in the world at different times and under various forms; it has not been exclusively bound to any social condition, and it is not confined to democracies,” (Capaldi, N., p. 182; Tocqueville, A., p. 372). Alexis de Tocqueville based politics on social conditioning; revealing the political effect produced by the social condition of equality. Tocqueville critiqued the efficacy of equality, writing; “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom as in America,” (Tocqueville, A., p. 159).
Adam Smith’s Philosophic Theology
Adam Smith believed that the pursuit of self-interest was compatible with a Biblical worldview; writing, “[a]s to love our neighbour as we love ourselves is the great law of Christianity, so it is the great precept of nature to love ourselves only we love our neighbor, or, what comes to the same thing, as our neighbor is capable of loving us,” (Smith, A., p. 9). The pursuit of self-interest is decreed by the Lord that man love his neighbors as he loves himself, (Mat 19:19, 22:39; Mar 12:31,33; Luk 10:27). The Apostle Paul reiterated this in Galatians whereby scribing “[f]or the whole law can be summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’” (Galatians 5:14; NLT).
God enables us to understand the human capacity for love, as He gives us unconditional love, no matter our state; multiple chances no matter our strife; and triumph when we declare victory in His name—a characteristic distinctly absent from fallen man, found in God’s Holy Spirit. Jesus reminds of that we must take care of ourselves before considering others, as a relationship with the Lord is essential to act virtuous; as it is written “[a]nd what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but are yourself lost or destroyed?” (Luke 9:25; NLT). We are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26,27; 2 Cor 11:7; James 3:9); equally crafted from one blood (Acts 17:26); to reflect His image unto the Kingdom we inhabit, (2 Cor 3:18). Adam Smith believed that justice was a reflection of man and that ethics were a reflection of God. Smith described “perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to choose what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper. Every man’s interest would prompt him to seek the advantageous, and to shun the disadvantageous employment,” (Haggarty, J.; Smith, A., Loc. 805).
Conclusion
The Founders presupposed equality among men; a mutual consensus between both Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and foreign spectators like Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville. But union cannot arrive, nor sustain without civil discourse. Alongside contention between America’s Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Adam Smith enacted important ideas to political theory, that—though unconsidered during the Constitutional Convention—would influence generations of men through his observations and dissertations that have remained preserved with reverence for posterity. Adam Smith’s writings remind us that man’s consideration of his own value on the basis of presupposed equality is essential for a functioning nation; a concept apropos to contemporary polity.
Bibliography
Adams, J. (2000). The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams. Liberty Fund Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Capaldi, N. et al. (2011). The Two Narratives of Political Economy. Wiley. Kindle Edition.
Haggarty, J. (1976, 2013). The Wisdom of Adam Smith. Liberty Fund Inc. Kindle Edition.
Hamilton, A., et al., (2001). The Federalist. Liberty Fund, Inc. Kindle Edition.
Jefferson, T. (2019). Delphi Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Ten Book 4). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Smith, M. (1981, 2021). The Anti-Federalist Writings of the Melancton Smith Circle. Liberty Fund, Inc. Kindle Edition.
Strauss, L., et al. (1963, 1972, 1987). History of Political Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Tocqueville, A. Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Optimized for Kindle). Kindle Edition.
Washington, G. (1988). George Washington. Liberty Fund, Inc. Kindle Edition.
JMBK.NEWS 