"The terms do not have to be spelled out, because they have been set not by a meeting of minds of the parties, but by a default baseline defined by corporate, property, and employment law that establishes the legal parameters for the constitution of capitalist firms." p. 2.

The long republican tradition is characterized by a conception of freedom as non‐domination, which offers an alternative, both to the negative view of freedom as non‐interference and to the positive view of freedom as self‐mastery. The first part of the book traces the rise and decline of the conception, displays its many attractions and makes a case for why it should still be regarded as a central political ideal. The second part of the book looks at the sorts of political (...) and civil institutions that would be required in a society in which freedom as non‐domination is systematically fostered. It outlines the causes and policies, the constitutional and democratic forms, and the regulatory controls that a republican state ought to endorse. And it argues for a vision of the state's relation to civil society in which there is no pretence of doing without widespread civility and trust; the argument is that the state ought, at once, to foster and build on such extra‐political foundations. (shrink)

Adam Smith was arguably the first great Enlightenment thinker to offer a thorough and considered response to the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the first great Counter-Enlightenment thinker. As recent scholarship has stressed, Smith sympathized with many aspects of Rousseau’s wide-ranging critique of commercial society. In the end, however, their differences were far more fundamental. This essay examines four key areas of divergence between the two, namely their views on the popular dissemination of the arts and sciences ; the moral effects (...) of commerce; the nature of liberty and citizenship; and the idea of progress. In each case, Smith stood closer to the leading figures of the French Enlightenment—thinkers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Diderot—than he did to their great critic Rousseau. (shrink)

The market is traditionally hailed as the very exemplar of a system under which people enjoy freedom, in particular the negative sort of freedom associated with liberal and libertarian thought: freedom as noninterference. But how does the market appear from the perspective of a rival conception of freedom (freedom as non-domination) that is linked with the Roman and neo-Roman tradition of republicanism? The republican conception of freedom argues for important normative constraints on property, exchange, and regulation, without supporting extremes to (...) the effect that ‘property is theft’ or ‘taxation is theft’ or anything of that kind. It does not cast a cold eye on commerce; it merely provides an alternative view of the attractions. (shrink)

Taking the title of his book from Isaiah Berlin's famous essay distinguishing a negative concept of liberty connoting lack of interference by others from a positive concept involving participation in the political realm, Samuel Fleischacker explores a third definition of liberty that lies between the first two. In Fleischacker's view, Kant and Adam Smith think of liberty as a matter of acting on our capacity for judgment, thereby differing both from those who tie it to the satisfaction of our desires (...) and those who translate it as action in accordance with reason or "will." Integrating the thought of Kant and Smith, and developing his own stand through readings of the Critique of Judgment and The Wealth of Nations, Fleischacker shows how different acting on one's best judgment is from acting on one's desires--how, in particular, good judgment, as opposed to mere desire, can flourish only in favorable social and political conditions. At the same time, exercising judgment is something every individual must do for him- or herself, hence not something that philosophers and politicians who reason better than the rest of us can do in our stead. For this reason advocates of a liberty based on judgment are likely to be more concerned than are libertarians to make sure that government provides people with conditions for the use of their liberty--for example, excellent standards of education, health care, and unemployment insurance--while at the same time promoting a less paternalistic view of government than most of the movements associated for the past thirty years with the political left. (shrink)

I will argue in what follows that the reading of Smith which attributes to him a theory of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and the implications which follow from it, are unfounded. There are three key aspects of the interpretation which I will challenge. First, that Smith's account of the destruction of feudal power by the progress of commerce is related to an explanation of the transition to the commercial stage; second, that the decline in baronial power incorporates Smith's (...) account of the ending of serfdom and a change in relations of production in the Marxian sense; and third, that the rise of international commerce -- the �prime-mover� in the whole process, is a force which is external to European feudalism. (shrink)