Adam Smith seemed to see things differently, for what it's worth (about the "blank slate", that is; not about freedom or equality). I guess the point is we've

Adam Smith seemed to see things differently, for what it's worth (about the "blank slate", that is; not about freedom or equality). I guess the point is we've had ~350 years of scientific discovery and philosophical musings since Locke, and we still don't have simple answers to any of this stuff. I don't think any serious commentator today (on Quillette or elsewhere) would argue that the existence of some degree of innateness of human nature should pre-determine anyone to a lesser level of freedom or equality or ability to thrive in the world. I think they'd argue that a better understanding of the former is necessary in order to improve the latter. At least I would, as someone who has significant skin in the game in terms of my own ability to function.