Another Adam Smith mystery: Toulouse, 1764

We know why Adam Smith was in the South of France for most of 1764 and 1765. In summary, the Scottish professor had agreed to tutor a young aristocrat — the soon-to-be 3d Duke of Buccleugh — during the future duke’s “grand tour” of the Continent, and Smith had chosen Toulouse as their center of operations. (For a summary of Smith’s travels in France and Switzerland, see generally chapters 12–14 in Rae 1895, which are available here for free, and for a map and detailed timeline of Smith’s travels in the South of France, see Alcouffe and Massot-Bordenave 2020, xiii–xiv, xviii–xix. See also chapter 13 in Ross 2010.)

And we also know that, in setting off for France, the future father of modern economics and the future duke were following an elite and well-established tradition, for the Grand Tour was a rite of passage of the sons of elite British families as well as the crown jewel of their education. (See, e.g., Cohen 2001, 129; Brodsky-Porges 1981, 178.) But in an enigmatic letter addressed to his friend and mentor David Hume — a letter postmarked from Toulouse and dated 5 July 1764 — Adam Smith refers to a book that he is writing: “The Life which I led at Glasgow was a pleasurable, dissipated life in comparison of that which I lead here at Present. I have begun to write a book in order to pass away the time”. (See Letter #82 in Mossner & Ross 1982.)

What was this lost book? Was it, as most scholars suppose, the great work that would eventually become The Wealth of Nations, or was it something else entirely, perhaps Smith’s extended essay on “Considerations concerning the First Formation of Languages”? As it happens, Smith’s speculations on the origins of language were first published in 1767 in the form of an appendix to the third edition of his Theory of Moral Sentiments (see, e.g., Land 1977, p. 677), less than one year after the Scottish philosopher’s return from France in late 1766!

Note: I will resume my series of Adam Smith mysteries on Monday; in the meantime, the full citations to the scholarly works mentioned in this blog post appear below this 1650 map of Toulouse.

1650 - "Toulouse, ville capitale du Languedoc, archevesché, parlement et  université". | Toulouse, Languedoc, Ville

Works Cited

Alcouffe, Alain, and Philippe Massot-Bordenave. 2020. Adam Smith in Toulouse and Occitania: The Unknown Years. Palgrave Macmillan

Brodsky-Porges, Edward. 1981. The Grand Tour: Travel as an Educational Device, 1600–1800. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2): 171–186.

Cohen, Michèle. 2001. The Grand Tour: Language, National Identity, and Masculinity. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 8(2): 129–141.

Land, Stephen K. 1977.  Adam Smith’s ‘Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages. Journal of the History of Ideas, 38(4): 677–690.

Mossner, Ernest C., and Ian Simpson Ross, editors. 1982. The Correspondence of Adam Smith, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

Rae, John. 1895. Life of Adam Smith. Macmillan.

Ross, Ian Simpson. 2010. The Life of Adam Smith, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

How much of The Wealth of Nations was plagiarized?

It seems unlikely that the question [i.e. the charge of plagiarism against Adam Smith] can ever be answered for certain. (Keynes 1938, p. 43)

I will be presenting one of my works-in-progress, Die Adam Smith Probleme, at the next meeting of the International Adam Smith Society (IASS), which will take place at Waseda University in Tokyo next month. In this particular paper, which I am now honored to be co-authoring with a highly esteemed and much-cited Smith scholar (Salim Rashid), my co-author and I survey and discuss the many still unresolved mysteries surrounding the great Scottish philosopher — open questions about Adam Smith’s life and work that remain contested to this day — which is why the title of our new paper is the plural version of “Das Adam Smith Problem“. (For further details, see the chart in the post that I am reblogging below.)

To the point, Professor Rashid and I have been updating the original paper to include a new set of open and unresolved Adam Smith problems. Take, for example, Adam Smith’s famous example of a “pin factory”. In the words of my co-author (Rashid 1986, quoted in Peaucelle 2006, p. 489, available here), “It has been said of the first chapter of the Wealth of Nations, which deals with the division of labour, that it is beyond all comparison, the most popular chapter of the Wealth of Nations; no part of the work has been so often reprinted . . . no part of it is so commonly read by children, or so well remembered by them“. But did Adam Smith personally observe the factory or did he “develop his example from contemporary writings of his time” (Peaucelle 2006, p. 489), or to put it less delicately: did Smith, in fact, plagiarize from the great French Encyclopédie and other sources? (Paging my colleague and friend Brian Frye!) Stay tuned: in preparation for the IASS meeting in Tokyo, I will share many more Adam Smith problems in the days ahead.

Works Cited

Keynes, J. M. 1938. Review of W. R. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor. Economic History, 4(13): 33-46.

Peaucelle, Jean-Louis. 2006. Adam Smith’s use of multiple references for his pin making example. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13(4): 489-512.

Rashid, Salim. 1986. Adam Smith and the division of labour: a historical view. Scottish Journal
of Political Economy
, 33(3): 292-297.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Friday funnies: Adam Douglas Thompson

Check out his amazing Instagram page here.

new_yorker_spare_tire.jpg
Image credit: Adam Douglas Thompson
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

*Frank Ramsey’s Contributions to Probability (and Legal) Theory*

That is the title of my latest article, which was just published in Bocconi Legal Papers; see https://blp.egeaonline.it/it/102/papers. Below is an excerpt with the footnotes omitted:

 Ramsey developed his new approach to chance in a paper titled Truth and Probability, which he presented for the first time at a meeting of the Moral Sciences Club in November of 1926. In this remarkable paper, which was eventually published posthumously in 1931, Ramsey sketched out an entirely new and revolutionary way of looking at probability. We can summarize Ramsey’s picture of probability in ten words: “probabilities are beliefs and beliefs, in turn, are metaphorical bets”, or to quote Ramsey’s himself, “Whenever we go to the station we are betting that a train will really run, and if we had not a sufficient degree of belief in this [outcome] we should decline this bet and stay at home”. On this subjective view of probability, one can measure the strength of a person’s beliefs in betting terms, or again in Ramsey’s own words: a “probability of 1/3 is clearly related to the kind of belief [that] would lead to a bet of 2 to 1”. Most importantly, Ramsey also showed how one’s bets – i.e., one’s subjective or personal probabilities – should obey the formal axioms of probability theory.

Frank Ramsey: A Giant Among Titans
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wikipedia Wednesday: two great 20th-century books on *capitalism*

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton and Rose Friedman (pictured below, top row), first published in 1962 and available here in full –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams (pictured below, bottom row), first published in 1944 and available here in full or here (first 30 pp.) –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery

Bonus link: additional books about “capitalism” –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_about_capitalism

Sven Gerst 🚜 در X: «Q: What is the "Liberty Power Couple" of today? 🗽 ( Rose & Milton Friedman for scale) https://t.co/0OZGnE0txL» / X
Untitled
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Repeal the CFR?

I mentioned in my previous post that “I would repeal the entire Code of Federal Regulations root and branch …” In summary, my argument for repealing the CFR is based not on policy but rather on constitutional first principles. Does Congress really have the meta-power to delegate any of its enumerated powers, such as the power to declare war, regulate commerce, create a national Post Office, protect copyrights, or any of its other enumerated and limited legislative powers? Is that what the Framers intended when they drafted the Constitution in 1787, and if so, then why didn’t they say so in the text of the Constitution? Or did they?

Either way, even if we concede that Congress has the meta-power to create administrative agencies and to delegate all or part of its legislative powers to those agencies, it is axiomatic that the Constitution does not confer on Congress a general police power. Simply put, the powers of Congress are specifically enumerated, i.e. those that are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Therefore, since Congress lacks a general police power to define and punish crimes, it cannot delegate a power that it does not have. Yet, scattered among the 200,000-plus pages of the CFR (see here, for example) are as many as 300,000 rules and regulations that subject people to possible criminal penalties. Alas, no one really knows what the total number of federal regulatory crimes is; see here! Given this state of affairs, my argument is that, until we know the total number of federal regulatory crimes, we must throw out the metaphorical baby with the bath water and start from scratch.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

King for a day …

My previous post contained links to my critique of Cass Sunstein’s essay “Why I am a liberal” as well as links to my review of Philip K. Howard’s new book on Everyday Freedom. But both my critique of Sunstein and my review of Howard beg the question, What am I for? Simply put, if I were “king for a day“, what actions would I propose in order to expand the classical liberal system of natural liberty? So glad you asked! My dream political platform would consist of three simple and common sense planks:

  1. FEDERAL LEVEL. At the national level in Washington, D.C., I would repeal the entire Code of Federal Regulations root and branch … all of it! (If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to do this, perhaps the next president could do so via a global Executive Order. Also, moving forward, any proposed regulation must be approved by both houses of Congress in order to become binding law. That’s how you “drain the swamp”, folks.)
  2. STATE/LOCAL LEVEL. At the State and local levels of government, I would abolish zoning, planning commissions, occupational licenses, etc. once and for all. (If State legislatures are unwilling to take this radical but liberating move, then the courts should step in by striking down zoning laws and occupational licenses as unconstitutional takings. That’s how we create affordable housing and expand economic opportunities to all people.)
  3. STATE & FEDERAL LEVELS. Last but not least, at both the State and federal levels I would abolish income taxes, or what I like to call labor taxes. (Better yet, let’s replace all existing taxes either with a VAT or with a land value tax; i.e. “tax landlords, not labor”!)

Suffice it to say, I will further elaborate on each one of these libertarian proposals in future blog posts.

King for a Day | Top Cat Wiki | Fandom
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Reflections on Sunstein’s liberalism and Howard’s everyday freedom

For reference, below are links to my four-part critique of Cass Sunstein’s 2023 essay “Why I am a liberal” as well as links to my four-part review of Philip K. Howard’s 2024 book Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society:

CRITIQUE OF CASS SUNSTEIN’S FAUX LIBERALISM

  1. What is liberalism, and does it matter?
  2. Why Cass Sunstein is a faux liberal (part 2)
  3. The hypocrisy of Cass Sunstein? (part 3)
  4. The ethics of liberalism

REVIEW OF PHILIP K. HOWARD’S EVERYDAY FREEDOM

  1. Howard’s tautology, part 1 of 4
  2. Howard’s rhetorical rabbit, part 2 of 4
  3. What Howard gets right, part 3 of 4
  4. What Howard gets wrong, part 4 of 4

FINAL THOUGHTS

Sunstein says he is a “liberal” and against “tribalism”, while Howard says he is for “everyday freedom” and against “red tape”, but in reality — for the reasons I provide in the links above — both are at bottom paternalistic do-gooders who, instead of leaving us alone, want to nudge us in their preferred directions to do x, y, or z (take your pick). Among other things, my critique of Cass Sunstein (especially paragraph #5, quoted below) applies just as much to Howard as it does to Sunstein:

The problem with invoking [‘everyday freedom’] as a value is that all laws, by definition, restrict liberty to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the evil the law is designed to remediate. As a result, the question is not whether [we are] ‘for’ or ‘against’ freedom in the abstract. The real issue instead is, when [are we] prepared to limit the liberty of some actors in order to promote some other important value, such as public health or public safety? Simply invoking a general concept like [‘everyday freedom’] is of no real help when we are called to weigh and make difficult real-world tradeoffs.

Do-Gooder - KVIA
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Monday music: *Winter*

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment