Scientific+Revolution+in+Europe+(1600-1750)

=**//Enlightenment Thinkers//**= Terms to know: John Locke

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Enlightenment

Voltaire

Condorcet

Diderot

The Mayflower Compact

Enlightened Despot

philosophes

Adam Smith

//The Wealth of Nations//

capitalism Classical Liberalism

Thomas Hobbes

enlightened monarchs

Bishop Jacques Bossuet //The Social Contract//

Enlightenment Thinkers: An Introduction
We'll start with the seventeenth century "Enlightenment" in which thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Condorcet, and Diderot began to try to apply reason and scientific principles of inquiry to understanding the human species, human behavior, and human government. This process was, by necessity, philosophical in nature and varied. We cannot say that most enlightenment thinkers had the same opinions on any subject, except the idea that reason and science could lead to human perfection. Some thinkers stressed the stability and efficiency of monarchy. A rational king, what they called an "enlightened despot" all powerful, who made decisions based on scientific and rational principles, informed by the latest science and social theory, they thought was the perfect government. Others felt that though it was inefficient, democracy better addressed the reality of human nature. The question for many was, how can humans best be organized into a society that provides maximum benefits, minimum crime and the best security? These enlightenment era thinkers called themselves "philosophes". Their ideas were published in the books that were becoming increasingly available because of the growth in numbers of printing presses throughout Europe. Moreover, these ideas reached nearly every group in Europe because these printers, looking for growing markets, were having important works translated into the various European languages, making it easier for lay people with little education to read nearly anything. The philosophes' books, because they discussed things people were interested in, and because they were often controversial, became quite popular. Among the philosophes was a man by the name of Adam Smith, who put his formidable intellect to work trying to understand how money and wealth worked by applying scientific methods to the study of trade, and treating economic exchange as a kind of "natural" human activity. Just like naturalists who studied the behavior of animals, Smith wanted to understand how trade worked as a human behavior, and whether the movement of money worked according to natural laws. Smith wrote //The Wealth of Nations//, a book that has become the basis of capitalism. He wrote about a free market, in which people trade what they have, and noted that such trade is immeasurably facilitated by the existence of capital (thus capital-//ism//), and that to leave individuals to trade in their best interests creates a diverse market in which the goods people want are sold, and those that people don't want are not, forcing competition, the production of quality products, price efficiencies, etc.. Smith thought that this was the most efficient way to operate an economy. Smith's most important argument was that, contrary to the realities of the time, government should not regulate or act on the market in any way, and that such freedom would benefit everyone – growing prosperity in one area would create more power to make purchases in other areas, etc… until the entire wealth of a nation grew as a result. While Smith was a pioneer, his contemporaries were also hard at work applying science to social problems. One of those key areas was government itself. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau tried to understand from where the authority of government derives. This was a critical question of the age. Powerful absolute monarchs such as France's Louis XIV in the 17th century were "enlightened monarchs" in the sense that they were actively trying to centralize and rationalize their governments to make law and taxation more efficient, in to improve the power and security of the state. Enlightened monarchs supported scientific inquiry, and used it to create military technology and support the growing central power of the state. At the same time, though, these "enlightened monarchs" manipulated their economies in attempts to maximize their own income, and most thought of themselves as ruling by divine right. Bishop Jacques Bossuet, a French priest, had elucidated this idea most directly when he claimed that a monarch was not only ruler because she/he was chosen by God, but that God's choice of that ruler made her/him semi-divine. Thus the question of legitimacy was sealed, and to rebel against a king was tantamount to a mortal sin. This led to great security for the governmental system, and a sense that royal authority had no limits. Thomas Hobbes came, in his own scientific inquiries, to support this power, though not for the reason of divine right that Bossuet had expounded. Instead, Hobbes decided to go back to what he theorized was the human "state of nature" – what, he asked himself, were humans like before government was invented? His answer is that human life before government was probably "nasty, brutish, and short." Humans, Hobbes thought, were rude beings whose instincts were to accumulate material posessions and make relationships with each other. To that end, humans would do whatever it took to get the posessions and relationships they wanted, including fighting each other to the death over them. Hobbes thus theorized that human government had been created in order to create security – to end the situation of chaos that his state of nature suggested. In order to do that, Hobbes said, humans had created a sovereign – a king – and given over to that king all power over everyone in society – giving up all their rights in the process – in order that the king could use that power to create and maintain order and security. In Hobbes' view, the king needed total control of all in society in order to keep the peace. Because of the very nature of that pact, rebellion, and overthrow of the King, was neither desirable nor legal, regardless of how badly the king may have treated them. John Locke started from a similar premise. He also posited a state of nature in which humans by instinct tended to try to accumulate material posessions and form relationships with each other. Locke believed, also, that in cases where the desires/needs of one human met those of another, violence was likely to break out. He also thought that humans were rational, and so when they reached situations such situations, they would try to find a way to work out their differences. Locke thus wrote that humans formed government not only to protect themselves from each other, but to facilitate their natural tendency to accumulate material posessions and relationships without hurting each other. In otherwords, people came together in a contract, like businesses do, that was designed to form government, and the function of government was to maximize the freedom of people to trade and to associate with each other, while minimizing the negative effects of such relations through law. The government, Locke thus believed, like Hobbes, received its authority not from God, but from those it governed. Further, Locke believed, unlike Hobbes, that government had to be answerable to the people who created it, not to control them, but to serve their interests. Interestingly enough, Locke was writing in a period of English history during which a debate was raging about taxes. Particularly at issue in England was whether the king had the right to take income taxes. Locke was among the majority of Britons who believed that taking income taxes constituted theft on the part of the government. He therefore was arguing in his thesis that since government derives its powers solely from the consent of the governed, taxes had to be approved by the people, and he said directly that if the government claimed more of the material goods or loyalties of the people than they were prepared to give, it was their duty to overthrow the government and create a new social contract. In a similar vein, but with more social emphasis than Locke, the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau was writing about what he called, quite specifically, //The Social Contract//. Rousseau also believed, like Locke, that people create government to facilitate their needs and rights, not to limit them just for the sake of security. Rousseau went further, however, in saying that the social contract was an agreement to a set of rules, made by representatives elected by the people of the sociey. That set of rules involved not only the government's responsibility to the governed, but the responsibility of the people to each other. Rousseau believed that crime, for example, was not the result of bad people. Instead, he thought that bad people who commit crimes were the result of faulty behavioral rules in the society. Thus, when someone commits a crime, society not only must punish the criminal, but must find out what social problems led to the crime, and solve them. We are all, Rousseau thought, responsible for each other. As these intellectuals continued to search and argue about the most rational and effective form of government, and the source of government's authority, an experiment in the application of these ideas was also taking shape. In the 1660's and 1670's people of European descent would create a new society, and a new government to administer to it, from whole cloth. They were heavily influenced by the ideas of Locke and Rousseau, and their industrious, competitive economy would in turn inspire Adam Smith to rethink the way business and money - and the market - work.



Adam Smith: //An Enquiry Into theCauses of the Wealth of Nations,// 1776
Read this chapter summary of Adam Smith's book, then answer the Review Questions in the quiz group below.

An Epitome **Book I, Chapter 1.** //Of the Division of Labor:// THE greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.... To take an example, therefore, the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business, nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it, could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. But in the way in which this business is now carried on, not only the whole work is a peculiar trade, but it is divided into a number of branches, of which the greater part are likewise peculiar trades. One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some factories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; that is, certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations.... The division of labor, so far as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labor. The separation of different trades and employments from one another seems to have taken place in consequence of this advantage. This separation, too, is generally called furthest in those countries which enjoy the highest degree of industry and improvement; what is the work of one man in a rude state of society being generally that of several in an improved one.....This great increase of the quantity of work which, in consequence of the division of labor, the same number of people are capable of performing, is owing to three different circumstances; //first//, to the increase of dexterity in every particular workman; //secondly//, to the saving of the time which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to another; and //lastly//, to the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labor, and enable one man to do the work of many....It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labor, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that //universal opulence// which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people. 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. He supplies them abundantly with what they have occasion for, and they accommodate him as amply with what he has occasion for, and a general plenty diffuses itself through all the different ranks of the society.... A pin-making shop int he 1760s. Can you identify the different tasks described by Smith?
 * Book I, Chapter 2.** //Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labor://THIS division of labor, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that universal opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another..... Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater art of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, //but from their regard to their own interest// //.//As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labor. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armorer, etc......
 * Book I, Chapter 4.** //Of the Origin and Use of Money:// WHEN the division of labor has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labor can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labor, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labor as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a //commercial society.// But when the division of labor first began to take place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the different productions of their respective trades, and the butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case, be made between them. In order to avoid the inconvenience of such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labor, must naturally have endeavored to manage his affairs in such a manner as to have at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for their produce.... It is in this manner that money has become in all civilized nations the universal instrument of commerce, by the intervention of which goods of all kinds are bought and sold, or exchanged for one another....
 * Book I, Chapter 5.** //Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities, or their Price in Labor, and their Price in Money:// EVERY man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labor has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labor can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labor of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labor which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labor which it enables him to purchase or command. Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.... The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What everything is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labor as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil.....
 * Book I, Chapter 6.** //Of the Component Parts of the Price of Commodities:// IN that early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labor necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another . If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labor to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer. It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days' or two hours' labor, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day's or one hour's labor. If the one species of labor should be more severe than the other, some allowance will naturally be made for this superior hardship; and the produce of one hour's labor in the one way may frequently exchange for that of two hours' labor in the other.....As soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their labor adds to the value of the materials. In exchanging the complete manufacture either for money, for labor, or for other goods, over and above what may be sufficient to pay the price of the materials, and the wages of the workmen, something must be given for the profits of the undertaker of the work who hazards his stock in this adventure. The value which the workmen add to the materials, therefore, resolves itself in this ease into two parts, of which the one pays their wages, the other the profits of their employer upon the whole stock of materials and wages which he advanced.... In this state of things, the whole produce of labor does not always belong to the laborer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock which employs him. Neither is the quantity of labor commonly employed in acquiring or producing any commodity, the only circumstance which can regulate the quantity which it ought commonly to purchase, command, or exchange for. An additional quantity, it is evident, must be due for the profits of the stock which advanced the wages and furnished the materials of that labor....The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labor which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labor measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labor, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit. In every society the price of every commodity finally resolves itself into some one or other, or all of those three parts; and in every improved society, all the three enter more or less, as component parts, into the price of the far greater part of commodities .....
 * Book I, Chapter 7.** //Of the Natural and Market Price of Commodities:// THERE is in every society or neighborhood an //ordinary or average rate both of wages and profit// in every different employment of labor and stock. This rate is //naturally regulated//, as I shall show hereafter, partly by the general circumstances of the society, their riches or poverty, their advancing, stationary, or declining condition; and partly by the particular nature of each employment. There is likewise in every society or neighborhood an //ordinary or average rate of rent//, which is regulated too, as I shall show hereafter, partly by the general circumstances of the society or neighborhood in which the land is situated, and partly by the natural or improved fertility of the land. These ordinary or average rates may be called the //natural rates// of wages, profit, and rent, at the time and place in which they commonly prevail. When the price of any commodity is neither more nor less than what is sufficient to pay the rent of the land, the wages of the labor, and the profits of the stock employed in raising, preparing, and bringing it to market, according to their natural rates, the commodity is then sold for what may be called its natural price. Though the price, therefore, which leaves him this profit is not always the lowest at which a dealer may sometimes sell his goods, it is the lowest at which he is likely to sell them for any considerable time; at least where there is perfect liberty, or where he may change his trade as often as he pleases. The //actual price// at which any commodity is commonly sold is called its//market price//. It may either be above, or below, or exactly the same with its natural price. The market price of every particular commodity is regulated by the proportion between the quantity which is actually brought to market, and the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity, or the whole value of the rent, labor, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither . When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither, cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want. Rather than want it altogether, some of them will be willing to give more. //A competition// will immediately begin among them, and the market price will rise more or less above the natural price, according as either the greatness of the deficiency, or the wealth and wanton luxury of the competitors, happen to animate more or less the eagerness of the competition.When the quantity brought to market exceeds the effectual demand, it cannot be all sold to those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither. Some part must be sold to those who are willing to pay less, and the low price which they give for it must reduce the price of the whole. The market price will sink more or less below the natural price, according as the greatness of the excess increases more or less the competition of the sellers, or according as it happens to be more or less important to them to get immediately rid of the commodity. When the quantity brought to market is just sufficient to supply the effectual demand, and no more, the market price naturally comes to be either exactly, or as nearly as can be judged of, the same with the natural price. The whole quantity upon hand can be disposed of for this price, and cannot be disposed of for more. The competition of the different dealers obliges them all to accept of this price, but does not oblige them to accept of less .Such fluctuations affect both the value and the rate either of wages or of profit, according as the market happens to be either overstocked or understocked with commodities or with labor; with work done, or with work to be done. But though the market price of every particular commodity is in this manner continually gravitating, if one may say so, towards the natural price, yet sometimes particular accidents, sometimes natural causes, and sometimes particular regulations of police, may, in many commodities, keep up the market price, for a long time together, a good deal above the natural price.When by an increase in the effectual demand, the market price of some particular commodity happens to rise a good deal above the natural price, those who employ their stocks in supplying that market are generally careful to conceal this change. If it was commonly known, their great profit would tempt so many new rivals to employ their stocks in the same way that, the effectual demand being fully supplied, the market price would soon be reduced to the natural price, and perhaps for some time even below it. If the market is at a great distance from the residence of those who supply it, they may sometimes be able to keep the secret for several years together, and may so long enjoy their extraordinary profits without any new rivals. Secrets of this kind, however, it must be acknowledged, can seldom be long kept; and the extraordinary profit can last very little longer than they are kept.//A monopoly// granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion, indeed, but for any considerable time together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will consent to give: the other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship, and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency, though in a less degree. They are a sort of enlarged monopolies, and may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the labor and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate. Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the regulations of police which give occasion to them....
 * Book I, Chapter 8.** //Of the Wages of Labor:// THE produce of labor constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labor . In that original state of things, which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labor belongs to the laborer . He has neither landlord nor master to share with him. Had this state continued, the wages of labor would have augmented with all those improvements in its productive powers to which the division of labor gives occasion. All things would gradually have become cheaper. They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labor; and as the commodities produced by equal quantities of labor would naturally in this state of things be exchanged for one another, they would have been purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity. But this original state of things, in which the laborer enjoyed the whole produce of his own labor, could not last beyond the first introduction of the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock. It was at an end, therefore, long before the most considerable improvements were made in the productive powers of labor, and it would be to no purpose to trace further what might have been its effects upon the recompense or wages of labor. As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the laborer can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labor which is employed upon land.Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbors and equals. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labor even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labor. ....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.... When the landlord, annuitant, or monied man, has a greater revenue than what he judges sufficient to maintain his own family, he employs either the whole or a part of the surplus in maintaining one or more menial servants. Increase this surplus, and he will naturally increase the number of those servants. When an independent workman, such as a weaver or shoemaker, has got more stock than what is sufficient to purchase the materials of his own work, and to maintain himself till he can dispose of it, he naturally employs one or more journeymen with the surplus, in order to make a profit by their work. Increase this surplus, and he will naturally increase the number of his journeymen. The demand for those who live by wages, therefore, necessarily increases with the increase of the revenue and stock of every country, and cannot possibly increase without it. The increase of revenue and stock is the increase of national wealth....Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconvenience to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, laborers, 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 inconvenience 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, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.The liberal reward of labor, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labor are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the laborer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days perhaps in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low.
 * Book I, Chapter 10.** //Of Wages and Profit in the different Employments of Labor and Stock:// THE policy of Europe, by not leaving things at perfect liberty, occasions other inequalities of much greater importance. It does this chiefly in the three following ways. //First//, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than would otherwise be disposed to enter into them; //Second//, by increasing it in others beyond what it naturally would be; and, //Third//, by obstructing the free circulation of labor and stock, both from employment to employment and from place to place.//First//, the policy of Europe occasions a very important inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labor and stock, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into them. The exclusive privileges of corporations, or guilds, are the principal means it makes use of for this purpose. The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper....The pretense that corporations are necessary for the better government of the trade is without any foundation. The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is not that of his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence. An exclusive corporation necessarily weakens the force of this discipline. //Second//, the policy of Europe, by increasing the competition in some employments beyond what it naturally would be, occasions another inequality of an opposite kind in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labor and stock....In the professions, such as law and medicine, if an equal proportion of people were educated at the public expense, the competition would soon be so great as to sink very much their pecuniary reward. It might then not be worth any man's while to educate his son to either of those professions at his own expense.... //Third//, the policy of Europe, by obstructing the free circulation of labor and stock both from employment to employment, and from place to place, occasions in some cases a very inconvenient inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of their different employments....Whatever obstructs the free circulation of labor from one employment to another obstructs that of stock likewise; the quantity of stock which can be employed in any branch of business depending very much upon that of the labor which can be employed in it. Corporation laws, however, give less obstruction to the free circulation of stock from one place to another than to that of labor. It is everywhere much easier for a wealthy merchant to obtain the privilege of trading in a town corporate, than for a poor artificer to obtain that of working in it....
 * Book I, Chapter 11.** //Effects of the Progress of Improvement upon the Real Price of Manufactures:// It is the natural effect of improvement, however, to diminish gradually the real price of almost all manufactures. That of the manufacturing workmanship diminishes, perhaps, in all of them without exception. In consequence of better machinery, of greater dexterity, and of a more proper division and distribution of work, all of which are the natural effects of improvement, a much smaller quantity of labor becomes requisite for executing any particular piece of work, and though, in consequence of the flourishing circumstances of the society, the real price of labor should rise very considerably, yet the great diminution of the quantity will generally much more than compensate the greatest rise which can happen in the price....But in all cases in which the real price of the rude materials either does not rise at all, or does not rise very much, that of the manufactured commodity sinks very considerably.Every improvement in the circumstances of the society tends either directly or indirectly to raise the real rent of land, to increase the real wealth of the landlord, his power of purchasing the labor, or the produce of the labor of other people. The extension of improvement and cultivation tends to raise it directly. The landlord's share of the produce necessarily increases with the increase of the produce..... Every increase in the real wealth of the society, every increase in the quantity of useful labor employed within it, tends indirectly to raise the real rent of land. A certain proportion of this labor naturally goes to the land. A greater number of men and cattle are employed in its cultivation, the produce increases with the increase of the stock which is thus employed in raising it, and the rent increases with the produce.

Source:From: Adam Smith, //An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations//, 2 Vols., Everyman's Library (London: Dent & Sons, 1904), Vol. I, //passim//.Scanned and organized by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

This text is part of the [|Internet Modern History Sourcebook]. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.

Paul Halsall, January 1999

halsall@fordham.edu

**Review Questions (5 points each):**

__Bonus Question (5 extra credit points):__
 * 1) In your own words, explain what Adam Smith meant when he wrote, "[t  he] division of labor, so far as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labor." What example does he give (again in your own words) for this?
 * 2) How is individual self-interest related to labor and trade?
 * 3) According to Smith (but in your own words), what are the conditions that create a //commercial society//? How is money related to that?
 * 4) What (in your own words) did Smith mean when he wrote that, "Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities?"
 * 5) Explain Smith's statement that, "the proportion between the quantities of labor necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another."
 * 6) Now explain why he said that, "the whole produce of the labor does not always belong to the laborer."
 * 7) What is the difference between the "natural" price, and the "market price" of commodities?
 * 8) According to Smith (in your own words), what happens when land becomes private property? What happens when people begin to accumulate capital (Smith called it "stock")?

The History of Classical Liberalism What are the seven basic ideas of Classical Liberalism, according to Dr. Stephen Davies?
 * Review Questions (1 point each):**



__Bonus Question (5 extra credit points):__