3 ms·

> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these am

> 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.

3 ms·

> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these am

by ScottBurson 9y ago

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.