style="font-size:15px;"> […]
Secondly, every individual who employs his capital in the support of domestic industry, necessarily endeavours so to direct that industry, that its produce may be of the greatest possible value.
The produce of industry is what it adds to the subject or materials upon which it is employed. In proportion as the value of this produce is great or small, so will likewise be the profits of the employer. But it is only for the sake of profit that any man employs a capital in the support of industry; and he will always, therefore, endeavour to employ it in the support of that industry of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, or to exchange for the greatest quantity either of money or of other goods.
But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
To give the monopoly of the home-market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or a hurtful regulation. If the produce of domestic can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful. It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The taylor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a taylor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbours, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.
What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the abovementioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage, when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished, when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore, have been purchased with a part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capital would have produced at home, had it been left to follow its natural course. The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more, to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.
[…]
Part II
Liberal Theories of Social Order
Introduction to Part II
1 5 “Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of the Americans”
3 7 “What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear”
6 10 “Freedom in a Complex Society”
Introduction to Part II
Liberalism was an outgrowth of the European intellectual movement called the “Enlightenment” of the 18th century. Intellectuals wanted a new “science of society” – general, useful social explanations – based on analytical reasoning and empirical observation. The social sciences had an ethical mission, namely, to realize the innate human potential for freedom and progress. Science would enable people to choose their own paths; hence the purposes of social science were “liberal” (freeing) and human emancipation would be its great result. In 1782, the mathematician and philosopher Nicolas de Condorcet laid out the utopian longings that lay behind liberalism nicely, arguing that, “Those sciences, created almost in our own days, the object of which is the happiness of man, will enjoy a progress no less sure than that of the physical sciences, and this idea, so sweet, that our descendants will surpass us in wisdom as in enlightenment…”.
But how best to achieve these lofty goals? A key claim of the Enlightenment was that society could be improved by unlocking the human capacity for rational pursuit of self-interest. There can be tension between the imperatives of freedom and those of order. One way to resolve the tension led through revolution to overthrow traditional authorities like princes and priests and replace them with a new governing elite that would use the power of the state to modernize society in line with enlightened goals. This radical path was appealing to liberal thinkers impatient with the slow pace of progress, obstructed by tyrants, and committed to egalitarianism. However, in the minds of the most influential liberals, the radical, state-led path lost its appeal following the violence and tyranny that arose from the French Revolution of 1789 and the Napoleonic
