4 ms·

I can't imagine how you don't see it. All of his warnings are against regulations that make collusion more likely, and he explicitly says that it would be impo

I can't imagine how you don't see it. All of his warnings are against regulations that make collusion more likely, and he explicitly says that it would be impossible for any regulation that would prohibit people from the same trade from meeting to "be executed" or "be consistent with liberty and justice". Every single admonishment was against regulations, whether on grounds of contributing to collusion, or being unenforceable and inconsistent with "liberty and justice".

yesenadam 9y ago
(I'm very much no expert) Thanks. So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. edit: Oh, you added your snarky first sentence. That's not an improvement.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  I wasn't trying to be snarky. I genuinely don't see how his multiple warnings about particular regulations in that short passage doesn't contradict the author's claim that he opposed the unregulated market position. If anything, it supports the notion that he supported unregulated markets. >>So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. If "unregulated markets in the face of state interference" means that markets being unregulated and free of state interference, yes I do read that particular passage as endorsing that view, for reasons I've articulated. >>Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
ScottBurson 9y ago
> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these amount to an argument against all regulation. In fact that strikes me as a very odd generalization... like saying "Java sucks so let's do away with software".
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Yes you're right that he criticizes particular regulations in that passage. My point is that he doesn't endorse any regulations and criticizes several. This is context in which the passage about collusion between merchants, which Sangar claims supports his contention that Smith's intention was the "opposite" of that of modern free market advocates, appears. That passage in no way conveys a position in opposition to the free market. If anything, it only supports it. Moreover, I'd argue statements like "It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice" take a philosophical position against regulations in general, and there are many such statements in the Wealth of Nations.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    > statements like [quote elided] take a philosophical position against regulations in general I don't get that at all. Regulations cover lots of things other than potential collusion.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      I read the "[in]consistent with liberty and justice" quote as a stance against laws that inhibit the right to associate, and that is very closely related to the right to freely contract, which the vast majority of regulations inhibit. If he believed that it would be consistent with liberty and justice to prohibit certain classes of contracts, he would have simply advocated for a law against collusion agreements/contracts as the solution to merchants colluding.

yesenadam 9y ago

(I'm very much no expert) Thanks. So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. edit: Oh, you added your snarky first sentence. That's not an improvement.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
I wasn't trying to be snarky. I genuinely don't see how his multiple warnings about particular regulations in that short passage doesn't contradict the author's claim that he opposed the unregulated market position. If anything, it supports the notion that he supported unregulated markets. >>So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. If "unregulated markets in the face of state interference" means that markets being unregulated and free of state interference, yes I do read that particular passage as endorsing that view, for reasons I've articulated. >>Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

ScottBurson 9y ago

> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these amount to an argument against all regulation. In fact that strikes me as a very odd generalization... like saying "Java sucks so let's do away with software".

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Yes you're right that he criticizes particular regulations in that passage. My point is that he doesn't endorse any regulations and criticizes several. This is context in which the passage about collusion between merchants, which Sangar claims supports his contention that Smith's intention was the "opposite" of that of modern free market advocates, appears. That passage in no way conveys a position in opposition to the free market. If anything, it only supports it. Moreover, I'd argue statements like "It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice" take a philosophical position against regulations in general, and there are many such statements in the Wealth of Nations.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  > statements like [quote elided] take a philosophical position against regulations in general I don't get that at all. Regulations cover lots of things other than potential collusion.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    I read the "[in]consistent with liberty and justice" quote as a stance against laws that inhibit the right to associate, and that is very closely related to the right to freely contract, which the vast majority of regulations inhibit. If he believed that it would be consistent with liberty and justice to prohibit certain classes of contracts, he would have simply advocated for a law against collusion agreements/contracts as the solution to merchants colluding.