As I mentioned in a previous post (see here), Adam Smith surveys a wide variety of British mercantilist laws in Part #12 of his 1784 pamphlet, but he devotes most of his time and energy here to wool (see paragraphs 17 to 32 on pp. 29-38) and to artisans (see paragraphs 44 to 48 on pp. 43-45). We saw Smith’s critique of Britain’s ban on wool exports in yesterday’s post. Today, we will not only examine his substantive critique of the restrictions on artisans. We will also see another side of the Scottish scholar cum customs commissioner — what I like to call the sarcastic Adam Smith — for Smith’s sarcasm will be on full display here.

To begin, Smith makes the following general point in paragraph 43 of Part #12: “The exportation … of the instruments of trade, properly so called, is commonly restrained, not by high duties, but by absolute prohibitions.” (Smith 1784, p. 43, my emphasis) Then, in the very next paragraph, Smith makes the following wry but witty observation:

“When such heavy penalties [are] imposed upon the exportation of the dead instruments of trade, it could not well be expected that the living instrument, the artificer, should be allowed to go free.” (Id.)

Next, Smith surveys British laws restricting the free movement of artisans to other countries. (See paragraphs 44 to 46 on pp. 43-44 of Smith’s 1784 pamphlet.) In summary, the goal of these laws was to prohibit skilled workers or “artificers” from leaving the country. For example, if anyone tricked or enticed an artisan to teach his trade in another country, the trickster or enticer could be punished with a large fine and imprisonment, and these laws became much more strict over time.

After completing his survey of these onerous laws, Adam Smith drops the following bombshell in paragraph 47:

“It is unnecessary, I imagine, to observe how contrary such regulations are to the boasted liberty of the subject, of which we affect to be so very jealous; but which, in this case, is so plainly sacrificed to the futile interests of our merchants and manufacturers.” (Smith 1784, p. 44)

Here, Smith is being sarcastic not just to denounce the patent unfairness of these restrictions on artisans; he is also, perhaps unwittingly, making a much more deeper and profound point about the relationship between law and liberty. A law that restricts the ability of artisans to work overseas, by definition, restricts his liberty, i.e. his freedom of choice. But the same thing can be said about any law more generally, for all laws limit our liberties by restraining our freedom of choice, telling what we can or cannot do!

As I read this passage (para. 47), what Smith is sarcastically objecting to here is not just the restriction on the liberty of artisans. What most angers Smith is how the fundamental natural rights of artisans are being “sacrificed” to the mere economic interests of the merchants and manufacturers who lobbied for these laws.

But Smith saves his sarcastic best for last (paragraph 48) to describe the supposed “laudable motive” of these restrictions:

“The laudable motive of all these regulations is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvement, but by the depression of those of all our neighbours, and by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such odious and disagreeable rivals. Our master manufacturers think it reasonable that they themselves should have the monopoly of the ingenuity of all their countrymen. Though by restraining, in some trades, the number of apprentices which can be employed at one time, and by imposing the necessity of a long apprenticeship in all trades, they endeavour, all of them, to confine the knowledge of their respective employments to as small a number as possible; they are unwilling, however, that any part of this small number should go abroad to instruct foreigners.” (Smith 1784, pp. 44-45)

After denouncing these restrictions on artisans, Smith concludes Part #12 of his pamphlet with some timeless observations about “the mercantile system” overall. More specifically, cui bono? Who benefits from mercantilism? And who are its biggest losers? (To be continued …)