In my previous post I offered one example of what I view as Rothbard’s willingness to make bad arguments. A more important example, one I discussed online at some length back in the days of Usenet, is his account of economic history, his misrepresentation of Adam Smith (unfavorable) and his French contemporaries, especially Turgot (favorable). That controversy was revived when David Gordon posted an article on the Mises Daily web site defending Rothbard against my criticism and I responded. All the relevant evidence is findable:
Sorry David, this is off topic. Feel free to delete.
Quite a while ago we had a back and forth about The Wealth of Nations. I was working on a 20 year old memory and thought that Smith pitched an idea to peel away states post Revolutionary War.
Nah, I believe I was thinking of his idea to appease colonial resentment over the famous “No taxation without representation” thing. It was giving a voice in GB Parliament to colonial upstarts. Here’s a snip. This is from an era before English - edit, oops Scottish - rhetoricians learned the value of the full stop ‘.’ for readability.
“The parliament of Great Britain insists upon taxing the colonies; and they refuse to be taxed by a parliament in which they are not represented.
If to each colony which should detach itself from the general confederacy, Great Britain should allow such a number of representatives as suited the proportion of what it contributed to the public revenue of the empire, in consequence of its being subjected to the same taxes, and in compensation admitted to the same freedom of trade with its fellow-subjects at home; the number of its representatives to be augmented as the proportion of its contribution might afterwards augment; a new method of acquiring importance, a new and more dazzling object of ambition, would be presented to the leading men of each colony.
Instead of piddling for the little prizes which are to be found in what may be called the paltry raffle of colony faction, they might then hope, from the presumption which men naturally have in their own ability and good fortune, to draw some of the great prizes which sometimes come from the wheel of the great state lottery of British politics.”
I remember that passage as following the comment that the best solution would be to give the colonies independence, but since the UK government obviously wouldn't be willing to do that, the next best would be representation in parliament proportional to their contribution to tax revenue. It was followed by the comment that, if that was done, in about a century the capital would move to the New World, which was a pretty good estimate of the future relation between the two economies.
"Turgot, then Finance Minister of France, advised the king to take complete control of the direction of “the whole machinery of education,” including writing the textbooks, in order to open his subjects’ minds to “the obligations they have to society and to your power that protects them.”"
Not as a critique against your other points, but this one is not a good point against Turgot's liberalism or lack of it: only an idiot would plea the king finance to and control of education for the purpose of illustrating the people against that very king. It is possible, judging from that quote alone, that Turgot was hoping that that canon ("to get composed a series of classic books") he proposed there (and which he, presumably, trusted he could influence greatly) would have a positive, "sneaky" impact against the king's power and in favor of illustration and liberty
Sorry David, this is off topic. Feel free to delete.
Quite a while ago we had a back and forth about The Wealth of Nations. I was working on a 20 year old memory and thought that Smith pitched an idea to peel away states post Revolutionary War.
Nah, I believe I was thinking of his idea to appease colonial resentment over the famous “No taxation without representation” thing. It was giving a voice in GB Parliament to colonial upstarts. Here’s a snip. This is from an era before English - edit, oops Scottish - rhetoricians learned the value of the full stop ‘.’ for readability.
“The parliament of Great Britain insists upon taxing the colonies; and they refuse to be taxed by a parliament in which they are not represented.
If to each colony which should detach itself from the general confederacy, Great Britain should allow such a number of representatives as suited the proportion of what it contributed to the public revenue of the empire, in consequence of its being subjected to the same taxes, and in compensation admitted to the same freedom of trade with its fellow-subjects at home; the number of its representatives to be augmented as the proportion of its contribution might afterwards augment; a new method of acquiring importance, a new and more dazzling object of ambition, would be presented to the leading men of each colony.
Instead of piddling for the little prizes which are to be found in what may be called the paltry raffle of colony faction, they might then hope, from the presumption which men naturally have in their own ability and good fortune, to draw some of the great prizes which sometimes come from the wheel of the great state lottery of British politics.”
I think I got the peeling away states idea from the phrase:
“ If to each colony which should detach itself from the general confederacy”
But as we discussed the book had several revised editions after 1776 so ???
I remember that passage as following the comment that the best solution would be to give the colonies independence, but since the UK government obviously wouldn't be willing to do that, the next best would be representation in parliament proportional to their contribution to tax revenue. It was followed by the comment that, if that was done, in about a century the capital would move to the New World, which was a pretty good estimate of the future relation between the two economies.
I had forgotten the "detach itself" part.
"Turgot, then Finance Minister of France, advised the king to take complete control of the direction of “the whole machinery of education,” including writing the textbooks, in order to open his subjects’ minds to “the obligations they have to society and to your power that protects them.”"
Not as a critique against your other points, but this one is not a good point against Turgot's liberalism or lack of it: only an idiot would plea the king finance to and control of education for the purpose of illustrating the people against that very king. It is possible, judging from that quote alone, that Turgot was hoping that that canon ("to get composed a series of classic books") he proposed there (and which he, presumably, trusted he could influence greatly) would have a positive, "sneaky" impact against the king's power and in favor of illustration and liberty