NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, it's Term paper time and i got an interesting assignment.

we were to pick two famous dead people and stage an interview/debate between them. I am to write the paper as if the three of us were at a table, and i throw them a question and let them discuss, making their responses whatever i feel they would say based on the research i do.

i picked Karl Marx and Adam Smith

for those of you who do not know who these two people are, they are both economists. Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" (the beginning of the modern capitalist system) and Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" (the beginning of the modern communist system)[that's ideal communism, not russian or chinese communism, which was not the same as Marxist communism]

some of the questions i plan on 'asking' will have to do with some of the modern economic issues: Privatizing social security (which Smith should defend rather well) and the Open Source Software Movement (which is right in Marx's ballpark)

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/asmith/adams1.htm {Smith Biography}

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmarx.htm {Marx Biography}

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html {Wealth of Nations complete text}

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html {Communist Manifesto Complete text}

so: discuss.

i want to hear from people stand up for the system that they find the best ('best' is whatever you want it to be)

the debate i get here will help considerably with both sides of the paper, and may open up aspects of the sides that i would not think of on my own.

i would prefer that people who have read the actual works do the majority of the argumenting. people who have grown up in a capitalist system probably did not get many actual truths told to them about the communist system, so i would prefer that people debate against marx's ideals, instead of stalin's genocide

If you want examples of such discussion, check out the "The problem with Communism" thread, there's a huge debate raging between the Smith and Marx camps which spans page after page after page.

Both capitalism and communism are inherently evil! All government is evil! And so is the lack of government!

To be serious, I don't quite know enough about this "Smith" person to take part in a debate.

Is in the "Pudding" my friend...

Just LOOK at the results of each System and you will SEE which is Superior.

PROOF of the first Order.

Regards,
Gaar

and the Open Source Software Movement (which is right in Marx's ballpark)


And I am pretty sure that Smith won't have any problem with "Open Source" as well...

He favored whatever was good for the Market, and competition is good for the Market.

If Open Source has become the Antithesis to Windows and MicroSoft, then it is by Market forces that they have BOTH become what they have become, is it not?

Smith would have NO PROBLEM with that...

Regards,
Gaar

The Beautiful thing about Capitalism/Democracy is that you can get it a bit wrong and it is "self-correcting" over time...

Whereas if you get Communism just slightly wrong you get things like Stalinism, Maoism and all of the different bastardizations of Communism we have seen in less than a century now...

I know which I prefer.

Regards,
Gaar

The Beautiful thing about Capitalism/Democracy is that you can get it a bit wrong and it is "self-correcting" over time...

Whereas if you get Communism just slightly wrong you get things like Stalinism, Maoism and all of the different bastardizations of Communism we have seen in less than a century now...

I know which I prefer.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm still waiting for the self-correction from the days of reganomics and the trickle down thoery but hey, capitalism is stlii the lesser of two evils.

I wouldn't assume that capitalism=democracy though, take a look at corporate facism in Italy during the 30's and 40's. Very capitalist, not so much with the democracy.

I'm still waiting for the self-correction from the days of reganomics and the trickle down thoery but hey, capitalism is stlii the lesser of two evils.

I wouldn't assume that capitalism=democracy though, take a look at corporate facism in Italy during the 30's and 40's. Very capitalist, not so much with the democracy.

So I guess you missed the largest Economic boom since the end of the Second World War then?

Or that we were able to Balance the Budget in the mid- 90's?

Just how did that happen in less than a generation since the Reagan era, if his policies DIDN'T WORK!?!?

I didn't "assume" anything... Just pointing out that it takes one to get the other right, and vice versa.

Regards,
Gaar

If you want examples of such discussion, check out the "The problem with Communism" thread, there's a huge debate raging between the Smith and Marx camps which spans page after page after page.
Without even having read the majority of said thread, I can say that is a bad idea. I assume the capitalists are standing around yelling "Communism doesn't work, look at Russia" which was never "communist" and having no idea what teh hell Smith even said

The Beautiful thing about Capitalism/Democracy is that you can get it a bit wrong and it is "self-correcting" over time...

Whereas if you get Communism just slightly wrong you get things like Stalinism, Maoism and all of the different bastardizations of Communism we have seen in less than a century now...

I know which I prefer.

Regards,
Gaar
Because capitalism has never been present under a dictatorship *cough* China *cough* Trying to get into people's minds that capitalism is directly related to the ever-loved thoguht of demcoracy and communism is directly related to authoritarian government is a bullshit propaganda tactic. And to boot capitalism is NOT self-correcting, look at the US and other industrial nations early in the period, specifically prior to FDR's New Deal. That is the problem with Smith's ideal, he assumes capitalism is self-correcting and bases that on the industry of the time when companies actually had to rely on each other to function - hundreds of years ago. His ideal does NOT work today because businesses don't have the same restrictions businesses in the 1800s. There is no "invisible hand" going to fix a business if it starts taking over other businesses and industries, nothing can stop it but something more powerful - a government. A government MUST set up rules for corporations to follow in order to prevent them from abusing everyone because the invisible hand died when advanced technology was born.

Without even having read the majority of said thread, I can say that is a bad idea. I assume the capitalists are standing around yelling "Communism doesn't work, look at Russia" which was never "communist" and having no idea what teh hell Smith even said

Surprisingly not actually. There's a bit of that, but mostly we're discussing capitalism and communism on their merits as ideas, not calling the USSR in as empirical evidence.

Because capitalism has never been present under a dictatorship *cough* China *cough* Trying to get into people's minds that capitalism is directly related to the ever-loved thoguht of demcoracy and communism is directly related to authoritarian government is a bullshit propaganda tactic

I never said they were directly related...

Just pointing out that it takes the two together to get them BOTH right.

Is there a problem with that?

Regards,
Gaar

If you want examples of such discussion, check out the "The problem with Communism" thread, there's a huge debate raging between the Smith and Marx camps which spans page after page after page.


1) they are mainly re-hashing the same topics, with little regard to the ideas behind the systems.

the capitalists cannot look beyond the face that the 'communist states' tried to build communism and failed.

2) the topic starts off on the offensive, demanding that the communists explain themselves, and not asking the same of the capitalists.

3) nobody has yet defended capitalism in that thread. even the pro-capitalists only argue the anti-communist platform, with no support of their own system.

I never said they were directly related...

Just pointing out that it takes the two together to get them BOTH right.

Is there a problem with that?

Regards,
Gaar
You did not. You implied they were directly related by the use of the "Capitalism/Democracy" and not saying anything that would lead any one to think you wern't referring to them as one thing.

the capitalists cannot look beyond the face that the 'communist states' tried to build communism and failed.


More than once by the way... And that then calls for someone to point out why it MAY succeed at some point, when in fact it CONTINUES to fail, time and again...

SO again, why is that?

3) nobody has yet defended capitalism in that thread. even the pro-capitalists only argue the anti-communist platform, with no support of their own system.

Something about it being the most succesful System on the face of the Earth that needs explaining to you?

Our poorest citizens have as high a standard of living as most "average" citizens in Europe. The U.S. has the greatest Military the World has ever seen while at the SAME TIME producing the Largest Economy and Wealthiest citizenry that have become the MOST Charitable people in the World, BAR NONE!

Need any more evidence?

Regards,
Gaar

You did not. You implied they were directly related by the use of the "Capitalism/Democracy" and not saying anything that would lead any one to think you wern't referring to them as one thing.

Ok, you can argue semantics all you like...

I have explained myself and choose to stick to the subject and not let YOU divert the discussion from the point being made.

Regards,
Gaar

Something about it being the most succesful System on the face of the Earth that needs explaining to you?

Our poorest citizens have as high a standard of living as most "average" citizens in Europe. The U.S. has the greatest Military the World has ever seen while at the SAME TIME producing the Largest Economy and Wealthiest citizenry that have become the MOST Charitable people in the World, BAR NONE!

Need any more evidence?

Regards,
Gaar
Which countries in Europe are ouw poor the equivalent of? Albania? Czech republic? Angola?

Woo, greatest military in the world, that's why people were hiding under the desks because of the dangers of a communist country. Hey, now let's try providing statistics to back up the wild egotistical claims.


I have explained myself and choose to stick to the subject and not let YOU divert the discussion from the point being made.

I am on topic, it is you who is skirting around it praising capitalism and the US and spreading general propagandist bullshit

Something about it being the most succesful System on the face of the Earth that needs explaining to you?

define successful

what's the homeless rate again?

how about the gap between the poor and rich in this country?

do you measure 'success' by how easy it is for corporations to buy out the government positions?

Our poorest citizens have as high a standard of living as most "average" citizens in Europe.

source, please

The U.S. has the greatest Military

and that's a good thing?

the World has ever seen while at the SAME TIME producing the Largest Economy and Wealthiest citizenry

no.

just...

no.

if you're going to look at 'waelthiest citizenry', look at everyone.

that includes the herion addict down the street and the beggar at every corner, and not just bill gates

that have become the MOST Charitable people in the World, BAR NONE!

source please

Need any more evidence?

yes.

define successful
I believe he said "most successful", which is true, seeing as most other systems seem to burn and die for some reason.

1) they are mainly re-hashing the same topics, with little regard to the ideas behind the systems.

the capitalists cannot look beyond the face that the 'communist states' tried to build communism and failed.

2) the topic starts off on the offensive, demanding that the communists explain themselves, and not asking the same of the capitalists.

3) nobody has yet defended capitalism in that thread. even the pro-capitalists only argue the anti-communist platform, with no support of their own system.

Ok, I'll formulate a defence of capitalism right here. Capitalism is the idea that the state should not intervene in private affairs, social or economic, except to prevent acts of force, coercion and fraud, and to provide public land like roads to facilitate travel and trade. I believe that everybody has the inalienable right to buy, sell, trade, give, do and say as they like, provided their actions do not damage, destroy or detain another person's life or property without their consent.

Now, since politics generates such a wide spectrum of opinions, it would be unwise to assume that any person is necessarily any more right than the next. By giving a person or a group of people stewardship over another person or group of people, the risk is run that the person or people in control is wrong about what is best for the person they are controlling.

I think that the remedy for this is to give everybody jurisdiction over themselves and their own property to the greatest degree possible, so that if their decisions and actions do turn out to be harmful, they will only do themselves and their belongings damage.

Here's an exaggerated example of what I mean. Suppose somebody thinks that limb amputation is the only way to reach salvation. Now assuming this person only has control over himself and his property, and not over anybody else, he may well cut off his legs and bleed to death, but he won't have hurt another person. However, if this amputator were given jurisdiction over several people, he might make them all cut their legs off too. They would all suffer the consequences of his belief, and in my opinion, to be forced to be harmed by another person is obscene.

A similar example can regard other circumstances too. Suppose this person believes it to be wrong to own and consume food, water, or a life saving drug or something. In a capitalist system, where he is responsible for nobody other than himself, he can abstain from eating or life-saving-drug taking and suffer the certain death which will follow, but he will not have harmed anybody else. If he is in a position of power, he can make others abstain from such things, and cause their suffering and death as well.

With less vital possessions this can apply too. Say the guy thinks it's wrong to own a TV. Well, you can live without a TV, but other people might think it's a nice thing to have, or somebody might even think it's a necessity for them. Who's to say what people need and don't need? The man is perfectly justified if he denies himself the right to buy a television, but not in making others be denied this right too.

This principle can have consequences which vary in magnitude. What if somebody with stewardship over somebody else decides that it's right for them to die? Isn't that morally unacceptable?

This is why I think that the only laws which should exist should be ones which prevent any person from taking from or harming any other person without consent. To take one person and give to the other is to deprive the former of their belongings against their will. To kill somebody is to deprive them of their life. To force somebody to go somewhere, or do something, or give something to someone, is again to deprive them of a basic human right.

There's my moral justification for capitalism.

There are also empirical economic benefits of capitalism which I won't detail in this post, but they exist and I'm sure somebody else will talk about them in greater depth.

define successful

what's the homeless rate again?

http://www.homeless.org/do/Home

how about the gap between the poor and rich in this country?

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=289&sortorder=authorlast

To make "poverty" seem even worse, the government publishes statistics on the "income gap" between "rich and poor" in which the poor's income is understated as described above, while the income of the more affluent is artificially overstated by not extracting taxes from their income. Thus, the "income gap" looks grossly larger than it really is.

Counting all of the income of "the poor," economist Morton Paglin has estimated that the government's official poverty rate would only be about one-fifth as high as the government reports. That, of course, is exactly why the income and government benefits are not counted.

do you measure 'success' by how easy it is for corporations to buy out the government positions?

What?


source, please


http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=289&sortorder=authorlast

America's "poor" live much better than middle- and upper middle-class people do in most developed countries of the world. In Japan, the average household has 0.8 persons per room, compared to .56 persons per room for America's "poor," according to the government's own statistics. Even in Western Europe the average household is more crowded than the typical "poor" American residence. In many American cities, subsidized town houses are being built for welfare recipients that are in excess of 2,000 square feet and come completely wired with the latest computer technology. In Prince George's County, Maryland, people on welfare are given government housing vouchers worth up to $1,670 per month.

Virtually no one in America lacks the basic amenities of running water, flush toilets, and electricity. But in Japan, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 54 percent of the households lack a flush toilet and 17 percent are without a shower or bath. Seventeen percent of Norwegians are without a flush toilet, as are 7 percent of Germans and 11 percent of Italians.

More than 62 percent of the American "poor" own one or more cars, and about 15 percent own two or more. This is 40 percent higher than the automobile ownership rate of the entire population in Japan and about equal to that in England. More than 22,000 "poor" households have a heated swimming pool or a Jacuzzi, according to the US Department of Energy.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, America's "poor" do not differ substantially in the amount of food they consume compared to the upper half of the income earners. America's poor eat one-third more meat than the average German, twice as much as the British, and three times more than the Japanese. No wonder the former US Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, is warning of an "obesity crisis."



source please


http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poaverty.htm

Anything else I can do for you?

Regards,
Gaar

I never had any strong feeling for either capatalism or communism until I read Adam Smiths paper. I don't remember the exact words but adam said capatalism is all about yourself, that you doing want ever u want would in turn help socaity. I did not like that b/c it implys that u can fuck anyone over if u want and it wouldn't matter b/c its good for socaity. Then marx said workers made the nation and the rich people and without them there would be no nation or rich people. I liked this b/c it sounds like unity and it sounds like the truth. but thats my two cents

I never had any strong feeling for either capatalism or communism until I read Adam Smiths paper. I don't remember the exact words but adam said capatalism is all about yourself, that you doing want ever u want would in turn help socaity. I did not like that b/c it implys that u can fuck anyone over if u want and it wouldn't matter b/c its good for socaity. Then marx said workers made the nation and the rich people and without them there would be no nation or rich people. I liked this b/c it sounds like unity and it sounds like the truth. but thats my two cents

Smith didn't only say that capitalism was about yourself. His implication was that serving your own wants and desires would also help others, provided force and fraud were outlawed, because you can make a living by providing services to other people, and serve yourself by earning money from them.

I never had any strong feeling for either capatalism or communism until I read Adam Smiths paper. I don't remember the exact words but adam said capatalism is all about yourself, that you doing want ever u want would in turn help socaity. I did not like that b/c it implys that u can fuck anyone over if u want and it wouldn't matter b/c its good for socaity. Then marx said workers made the nation and the rich people and without them there would be no nation or rich people. I liked this b/c it sounds like unity and it sounds like the truth. but thats my two cents

Are you sure you read his Book?

He says we get others to consider our best interest by considering what is in their best interest also...

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. "

Something about that YOU don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=289&sortorder=authorlast

To make "poverty" seem even worse, the government publishes statistics on the "income gap" between "rich and poor" in which the poor's income is understated as described above, while the income of the more affluent is artificially overstated by not extracting taxes from their income.

but in a pure capitalism, where the government only sticks its nose in when someone is being mistreated, where do the taxes come in at all?

those are perfectly valid figures


What?

haven't you noticed?

you can only get into politics if you're rich.

for the entire history of our country, we've been ruled by the economic elite.


In many American cities, subsidized town houses are being built for welfare recipients that are in excess of 2,000 square feet and come completely wired with the latest computer technology. In Prince George's County, Maryland, people on welfare are given government housing vouchers worth up to $1,670 per month.

is that the same welfare that you conservatives are railing against as a 'socialist policy'?

According to the US Department of Agriculture, America's "poor" do not differ substantially in the amount of food they consume compared to the upper half of the income earners. America's poor eat one-third more meat than the average German, twice as much as the British, and three times more than the Japanese. No wonder the former US Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, is warning of an "obesity crisis."

cheap fatty foods do that to people.

if McDonalds is what they can afford, no wonder they're getting fat




http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poaverty.htm

Anything else I can do for you?


see, when i say 'source' i mean 'unbiased source'

ie: not 'the national conservative weekly'

see, when i say 'source' i mean 'unbiased source'

ie: not 'the national conservative weekly'

so you mean 'the national liberal weekly' then?

but in a pure capitalism, where the government only sticks its nose in when someone is being mistreated, where do the taxes come in at all?

Something about a Democracy YOU don't get?

WE THE PEOPLE Decided that taxes were the best way to deal with the Governments need for a Budget... Isn't Democracy wonderful! It is so flexible that you don't have to OVERTHROW your Government EVERY TIME you want to change something...

those are perfectly valid figures

Or so YOU say... Some seem to disagree.

haven't you noticed?

you can only get into politics if you're rich.

for the entire history of our country, we've been ruled by the economic elite.


Really?!?! Damn, I'm gonna go hit my Uncle up for some cake then... He's a Politician in Florida, and I was sure he/we came from some fairly modest means... I shoulda known he was holding out! :rolleyes:


is that the same welfare that you conservatives are railing against as a 'socialist policy'?

Is there a problem with that?

cheap fatty foods do that to people.

if McDonalds is what they can afford, no wonder they're getting fat


I'm pretty sure you can find "Healthy Food" on McDonald's menus also; I believe the point is more that they are eating well, not what they are eating. Seems the Europeans aren't eating so well either, but again, that wasn't the point.



see, when i say 'source' i mean 'unbiased source'

ie: not 'the national conservative weekly'

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I cited 3 sources in that post, and just how many have YOU cited in this discussion to support ANY of YOUR ASSERTIONS?!?!

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

America's "poor" live much better than middle- and upper middle-class people do in most developed countries of the world. In Japan, the average household has 0.8 persons per room, compared to .56 persons per room for America's "poor," according to the government's own statistics. Even in Western Europe the average household is more crowded than the typical "poor" American residence. In many American cities, subsidized town houses are being built for welfare recipients that are in excess of 2,000 square feet and come completely wired with the latest computer technology. In Prince George's County, Maryland, people on welfare are given government housing vouchers worth up to $1,670 per month.
That is a COMPLETELY fallical comparison, besides the fact Japan has roughly the same land mass as Montana with over 127 million citizens - roughly 4 times that of California (2004 estimate), a larger land mass than Japan, is the fact that number of people per room is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the manner in which people live.


Virtually no one in America lacks the basic amenities of running water, flush toilets, and electricity. But in Japan, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 54 percent of the households lack a flush toilet and 17 percent are without a shower or bath. Seventeen percent of Norwegians are without a flush toilet, as are 7 percent of Germans and 11 percent of Italians.
I love how you give no arbitrary numbers for the US but list it for all the other nations in the comparison.
Here's some numbers ~.02% of Japan is homeless (my math may be wrong) versus .87% of the US population (again math may be wrong but it was carried out in the same manner). And how does your biased number presentation actually apply



Your entire bullshit is trying to compare the US to Japan which in and of itself is a bullshit fallacy tactic. The nations and cultures of the US are inherently and totally different and any comparison ignoring that fact, like you are, should be disregarded

*snip*

Perhaps you should go read what was available at the link, rather than just cite the stuff I posted here for the argument... Which, by the way, also made comparisons to Western Europe and the UK, did it not?

And I was merely defending the comparisons ALREADY made by others here, and they didn't say anything about culture either, did they?

So why am I the only one that is not supposed to do it again?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Are you sure you read his Book?

He says we get others to consider our best interest by considering what is in their best interest also...

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. "

Something about that YOU don't get?

Regards,
Gaar
Nope I get that but....

"first introduced by the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men, without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the general welfare of the society"

This does mean that the first capatalist only cared about themself, so they did wat they wanted for them self but luckly society benitfet off them..... or did i read that wrong? just want to learn how to red it right. (everything deserves a 2nd chance)

Perhaps you should go read what was available at the link, rather than just cite the stuff I posted here for the argument... Which, by the way, also made comparisons to Western Europe and the UK, did it not?

And I was merely defending the comparisons ALREADY made by others here, and they didn't say anything about culture either, did they?

So why am I the only one that is not supposed to do it again?!?!

Regards,
Gaar
You arn't defending anything, you are making up your own points and applying MAYBE arbitrary but fallical documentation to back up your stupid pro-capitalist American jingoism, which this thread is not about. This thread is about why Smith's economic ideals are peaces of shit because they no longer be applied in a technologically advanced world. Or something like that

Something about a Democracy YOU don't get?

WE THE PEOPLE Decided that taxes were the best way to deal with the Governments need for a Budget... Isn't Democracy wonderful! It is so flexible that you don't have to OVERTHROW your Government EVERY TIME you want to change something...

yes democracy is wonderful

now can we go back on topic please?

Nope I get that but....

"first introduced by the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men, without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the general welfare of the society"

This does mean that the first capatalist only cared about themself, so they did wat they wanted for them self but luckly society benitfet off them..... or did i read that wrong? just want to learn how to red it right. (everything deserves a 2nd chance)

Not sure to "what" this is refering, it seems to be only a partial quote...

hard to judge intent from such things.

Regards,
Gaar

This thread is about why Smith's economic ideals are peaces of shit because they no longer be applied in a technologically advanced world. Or something like that


actually, that's not what this thread is about either.

i want the people who agree with smith to defend their position, and the people who agree with marx to defend their position

You arn't defending anything, you are making up your own points and applying MAYBE arbitrary but fallical documentation to back up your stupid pro-capitalist American jingoism, which this thread is not about. This thread is about why Smith's economic ideals are peaces of shit because they no longer be applied in a technologically advanced world. Or something like that

Yet Adam Smith's ideals WERE written IN the context of Democracy...

He was also a Founding Father of U.S. Democracy, was he not?

Wealth of Nations was meant to describe how Capitalism works with and benefits such a Society, was it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Not sure to "what" this is refering, it seems to be only a partial quote...

hard to judge intent from such things.

Regards,
Gaar
Though those different plans were, perhaps, first introduced by the private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men, without any regard to, or foresight of, their consequences upon the general welfare of the society; yet they have given occasion to very different theories of political œconomy;*10 of which some magnify the importance of that industry which is carried on in towns, others of that which is carried on in the country. Those theories have had a considerable influence, not only upon the opinions of men of learning, but upon the public conduct of princes and sovereign states. I have endeavoured, in the Fourth Book, to explain, as fully and distinctly as I can, those different theories, and the principal effects which they have produced in different ages and nations.
I.I.8

Yet Adam Smith's ideals WERE written IN the context of Democracy...

He was also a FOunding Father of Democracy, was he not?

Wealth of Nations was meant to describe how Capitalism works with and benefits such a Society, was it not?

Regards,
Gaar
What the fuck are you talkingg about? I'm in no more mood to deal with your idiotic, off-topic, jingoistic babbling that is completely and entirely irrelevant to economics or even capitalism v socialism. So why don't you go make your own topic and rant about how you are right in it instead of pissing me off in this topic I was actually maknig relevant points related to Smith v Marx. Have you read Smith's works or even discussed any part of it prior to here? Even if it had it wouldn't matter because you havn't said a relevant intelligent thing yet

He was also a Founding Father of U.S. Democracy, was he not?



he was scottish, busy writing the 'wealth of nations' when the revolution began

you're thinking of john adams




[edit:] oh:

cows, calm down.

i am just looking for a defense of the works and ideals of the two men.

i'm not looking to disprove one or the other, i just want to hear the benefits of each system from the people who believe in them.

i am just looking for a defense of the works and ideals of the two men.

i'm not looking to disprove one or the other, i just want to hear the benefits of each system from the people who believe in them.

I already cited at length the moral justification for capitalism on the first or second page. I think what I presented somewhat represents a stance Smith would agree with.