Analysis Of Liberty In Society Essay, Research Paper
Both Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville agree that an
individual is the most qualified to make decisions affecting the
sphere of the individual as long as those decisions do not violate the
law of justice. From this starting point, each theorist proposes a
role of government and comments on human nature and civil society.
Smith focuses on economic liberty and the ways in which government can
repress this liberty, to the detriment of society. De Tocqueville
emphasizes political liberty and the way that government can be
organized to promote political liberty, protect individual liberty,
and promote civil liberty.
Adam Smith’s theory makes a strong argument for the assertion
that a free market will provide overall good for society, but, as de
Tocqueville points out, it provides little or no protection for the
poor. Smith’s picture of human nature given in The Theory of Moral
Sentiments suggests that people would do good and take care of the
weak because of characteristics of their nature. Unfortunately, this
image contrasts with the picture of the individual which emerges from
his economic argument in Wealth of Nations and is a generally
unsatisfying answer.
In attempting to define liberty, Adam Smith is mostly
concerned with negative liberty, or freedom from constraint,
especially market constraints. According to him, in a free market, as
long as they are not fettered by government regulation, actions are
guided toward the public good as if by an invisible hand. Furthermore,
the economic sphere is the determining section of society. Therefore
from his economic model, he derives his argument for the best role of
government and asserts that the resultant society will be the best
overall for civilization.
Since he defines the individual as sovereign (within the laws
of justice), and he defines liberty as freedom from constraint, his
argument begins with the individual, defining a man’s labor as the
foundation of all other property. From this it follows that the
disposition of one’s labor, without harm to others, is an inviolable
right which the government should not restrict in any way (Smith 215).
He uses his economic theory to support his belief that this limitation
on government action creates the most overall good for society.
First, he defines all prices as being determined by labor
(Smith 175). Since labor causes raw materials to have value, Smith
asserts that labor confers ownership, but when stock is used there
must be something given for the profits of the investors, so labor
resolves itself into wages and prices (185). The support for the free
market lies in the way the prices are determined and the inner
workings of the market. The prices ultimately come from the value of
labor. A capitalist will want to produce as much as possible, in order
to make the greatest profit, therefore his demand for labor will rise.
As the demand for labor rises, wages will rise. As more people begin
working to meet the increased demand for labor, production will rise,
and prices will fall. Following this argument, in a free market,
everybody is working for his or her own personal gain, but maximum
production occurs, which increases overall wealth and prosperity. If
the government interferes by setting minimum wages, charging
prohibitive taxes, or regulating prices, it interrupts the natural
flow of the market. Therefore, Smith argues that the market prices of
wages and of goods should be regulated by the market rather than by
the government.
Smith then identifies three classes of people who develop from
capitalism: laborers, landlords, and capitalists. Each of these groups
act purely out of self-interest, and for this reason Smith does not
think any of them will be able to effectively rule with the good of
society in mind. The laborers are incapable of comprehending “that the
interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the
society…” (Smith 226). The landlords are the most impartial of the
classes and therefore the least likely to use government for any plan
or project of their own, but they are “too often, not only ignorant,
but incapable of that application of mind which is necessary in order
to foresee and understand the consequences of any public regulation”
(226). By process of elimination, Smith settles on the capitalists as
the most fit to rule, but stipulates, “the proposal of any new law or
regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be
listened to with great precaution, and out never to be adopted till
after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most
scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention” (227).
Due to the lack of a class which would be able to lead with
society’s interests in mind and because the unfettered free market in
which everyone is selfishly motivated produces the most, Smith
relegates to government only the three tasks of the defense of the
nation, the administration of justice, and the maintenance of certain
public works (289). This plan will prevent too many unnecessary
restrictions on “perfect” liberty, or complete freedom from
restraints, and will allow a system of natural liberty to establish
itself in which every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of
justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own
way.
This role of government also solves the impassable lack of
information problem that, according to Smith, is faced by any
government which takes the responsibility for superintending the
industry of private people. No government official could possibly
account for all of the chains of cause and effect, and no government
can truly know what is in the best interest of every individual.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that in Smith’s
theory, the government is actually defending the rich against the
poor. The poor, according to Smith, are often driven by envy and need
to invade the possessions of the rich. “It is only under the shelter
of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property,
which is acquired by the labour of many years or perhaps of many
successive generations, can sleep a single night in security” (294).
Note the assumption that the rich are entitled to their wealth
because it is acquired by hard work either of the person or his
family. Because of this, Smith considers civil government a necessary
institution.
One objection to this view of government and to the economic
reading in general is that one of the duties of government is to
protect the poor from the tyranny of the rich. In fact, in Smith’s
economic perspective, money demonstrates preferences. Therefore,
people with more money are able to influence the market much more than
people with less, and would therefore be less needing of government
protection. It is the people with less money who can least afford
change and bad times. Thus, these people are in the least position to
combat unfair practices or to change their position.
Alexis de Tocqueville recognizes this fault in Smith’s system.
First, laborer becomes more and more involved in his labors, and
therefore more focused on the small details for which he is
responsible, while the industrialist becomes increasingly interested
in the larger workings of the factory. In this way, the two classes
become less alike and mobility between them becomes more difficult.
Finally, “the industrial aristocracy of our day, when it has
impoverished and brutalized the men it uses, abandons them in time of
crisis to public charity to feed them” (de Tocqueville 558). In
Smith’s governmental plan, there are no provisions for taking care of
the poor when they are not taken care of by the market system.
In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith suggests that human
nature will turn the beneficence of the rich to the poor out of
sympathy for their condition (136), but this response does not offer
strong enough promise that the poor will be cared for when the
market fails. One can only hope that the de Tocqueville analysis is
wrong and the laborers will always make high enough wages.
Yet in Wealth of Nations, Smith says, “A man must always live by his
work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain
him,” (197), but is later forced to admit that when society is in
decline, wages fall even below “what is barely enough to enable [a
laborer] to bring up a family, or to continue the race of laborers”
(226).
It is the capitalists who are calculated to be the most
qualified to serve as government officials, it is the capitalists who
have the most control over the market through manipulation of their
money, and in the end it is still the capitalists who Smith thinks
need to be protected from the poor. This lack of provision for the
laborer makes Smith’s system rather unsatisfying.
Alexis de Tocqueville offers a more satisfying system stemming
from the same faith in individual sovereignty. Where Smith states,
“Every individual . . . can, in his local situation judge much better
than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him” (265), de Tocqueville
says, “Providence has given each individual the amount of reason
necessary for him to look after himself in matters of his own
exclusive concern. That is the great maxim on which civil and
political society in the United States rests…” (397) The phraseology
of these similar arguments is demonstrative if the different emphasis
of the authors. Smith’s phrase inherently limits government whereas de
Tocqueville’s includes it in government. By turning his focus to
political society, de Tocqueville highlights the role of positive
liberty 5 in government and builds an argument for the protection of
political liberty and individual freedom, which he considers to be
built into aristocratic society, but easily lost in democratic
society. In defining liberty, de Tocqueville applauds the following
definition of freedom by Winthrop: “There is a civil, a moral, a
federal liberty, which is the proper end and object of authority: it
is a liberty for that only which is just and good; for this liberty
you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives. . .This liberty
is maintained in a way of subjection to authority; and the authority
set over you will in all administrations for your good be quietly
submitted unto, by all but such as have a disposition to shake off the
yoke, and lose their true liberty, by their murmuring at the honour
and power of authority” (46). This definition emphasizes positive
liberty, which is maintained through subjection to the authorities
which have liberty as their goal. Implicit in this definition then is
the assertion that government will has the power to act in the name of
society.
In an aristocratic society, negative liberty in the form of
freedom from arbitrary control is built into the system. Also, for the
aristocrats, positive liberty in the form of ability to act as a group
exists. The question which de Tocqueville faces in describing
democracy is how to expand these liberties to include all people.
Positive liberty is opened to all people by extending the suffrage
and electing a representative government, but there are no structural
barriers to protect the negative liberties.
Alexis de Tocqueville is especially concerned with the
tendency towards tyranny of the majority. He therefore examines the
institutions in American society which will balance the tendency of
the majority to overpower its opposition. One such system is that of
strong local government. De Tocqueville agrees with Smith that people
should be allowed to take care of their own affairs because they are
closer to them. He then extends his analysis beyond this to include
the social benefits of strong local government. “Local liberties . . .
bring men constantly into contact, . . . and force them to help one
another” (511). Such social benefits are the more important
consideration for de Tocqueville. If society can be maintained in a
way which counteracts the overpowering strength of the majority,
liberty will continue. Unlike Smith, however, de Tocqueville does not
think that this argument for strong local government leads to the
conclusion that federal government should be extremely limited. In
fact, de Tocqueville expects the tasks of government to perpetually
increase. This conclusion is based on the assertion that men will be
less and less able to produce the bare necessities (515). Smith agrees
with this statement but expects the market to step in and provide all
that is desired. De Tocqueville does argue that the government must
never wholly usurp the place of private associations.
Implicit in his criticism of Adam Smith’s industrial economy,
which argued that the industrial aristocracy would abandon the poor to
government support, is the assertion that government will take
responsibility for the poor. De Tocqueville observes that in the
United States the framers of government had “a higher and more
comprehensive conception of the duties of society toward its members
than had the lawgivers of Europe at that time, and they imposed
obligations upon it which were still shirked elsewhere. There was a
provision for the poor . . .” (44). The phrases chosen demonstrate de
Tocqueville’s support for the programs. While Adam Smith would argue
that these provisions would hinder the free market by redistributing
income and interfering taxation, de Tocqueville is clearly asserting
that the duty of society to its members does include obligations to
protect the weaker members of society.
One of Smith’s reasons that government should be limited is
because there is no group of people who will rule with the good of
society in mind. By turning the focus away from the individual or
class of people who will be the magistrates and towards the system of
selection, de Tocqueville makes a case for not needing to limit
democratic government as severely as Smith would like. “It is
certainly not the elected magistrate who makes the American democracy
prosper, but the fact that the magistrates are elected” (512). The
people collectively will elect a group of representatives who will
have the power to make laws, but the power of executing them will be
left to the lower officials. “Often only the goal to be aimed at is
indicated to [the magistrates], and they are left to choose their own
means” (206). In this way, the power of government is great, but the
power of each individual to turn it to personal gain is small.
It is not the definitions of liberty offered by the two
theorists which are wholly incompatible, but rather the assertions
about the workings of society and the conclusions about the role of
government. Adam Smith’s account provides a good argument for the
power of the market and for a laissez-faire governmental policy.
Unfortunately, his theory fails to account for the societal problems
such as maintenance of the poor. Alexis de Tocqueville’s theory uses
the same considerations of individual rights and self-interested
motives, but examines more closely the societal institutions which can
balance governmental action. He therefore relegates a larger role to
government which includes a duty to take care of its members through
legislation aimed at liberty.