| Usually
viewed as the premier apologist for laissez-faire capitalism, Smith
is seen in this new interpretation within the context of an earlier
tradition that condemned the British aristocracy for relinquishing
its moral obligation to promote the public good in favor of an unceasing
pursuit of private gain.
Through separate chapters on Mandeville, Bolingbroke, and Hume,
Gallagher shows that Smith echoed civic humanist sermons against
the avaricious inclinations of the nobles who profited most from
commercial expansion. Unlike earlier critics, however, Smith concluded
that the most prudent response to aristocratic corruption was not
to hold ministers, kings, and social notables to higher standards
but to limit their access to political power. The Rule of the
Rich? accordingly shows that the case for limited government
made in The Wealth of Nations was not a defense of individual
liberty so much as a concession to the apparent incompetence of
the British upper class. |
|
|
