Book Five of #WealthOfNations is all about the duties of the sovereign and how to pay for them. In this first part of chapter 1, we’re talking about the cost of defense. (V.i.a) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The sovereign's duty to protect the country can only be done through military force, but how you get the money to pay for that military varies according to time, place, and circumstance. (V.i.a.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
In a hunter/gatherer society, everyone is always already a warrior, and since there isn’t really a sovereign or nation, no expense is required to maintain defense. Much the same is true of shepherding cultures. (V.i.a.2) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Armies of hunters are limited in size to a few hundred men (as they have to sustain themselves through the available game). Shepherds can muster larger forces because they bring their sustenance in the form of flocks. (V.i.a.3–5) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
#AdamSmith thinks wars among Indigenous American populations are contemptible because they’re small, but large invading cultures like the Tartars are impressive & dreadful.
We SmithTweeters boldly support smaller & fewer wars. (V.i.a.5) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Farmers are also prepared for soldiering as a result of their daily labor. If the fighting can happen after planting and before harvest, farmers can usually afford to join the fight. So a farming culture is also fairly inexpensive to defend. (V.i.a.7) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Once you move away from these forms of society, though, the increasing sophistication of manufactures and war make it impossible for professional soldiers to support themselves. (V.i.a.8) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Leave your fields for a bit? Crops keep growing.
Leave your loom? There's no loom-fairy to do your weaving. With no weaving, you don’t make money.
(We know there's no field-fairy, work with us.)
If you want soldiers, you have to pay them. (V.i.a.9) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Plus, wars are way longer now. Extended campaigns instead of stand-alone skirmishes mean there’s really no way for soldiers to maintain another trade.
The more developed a society, the fewer inhabitants are willing or able to go to war. (V.i.a.10–11) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
In the ancient world, learning to be a soldier was a standard part of becoming educated. But as the art of war becomes more sophisticated, it becomes a specialty. (V.i.a.12–15) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
(We, the SmithTweeters, never quite know what to make of Smith’s claim that war is “certainly the noblest of all arts.” Does he mean it? Is he being ironic? Is he questioning what it means for something to be “noble?”) (V.i.a.14) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
When soldiering becomes a specialty the government can either force people to learn how to be soldiers or treat soldiering as a profession.
The first gives you a militia, the second, a standing army. (V.i.a.16–19) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The invention of firearms means that the fitness and skill level of individual soldiers is no longer as important. Instead of skill, you need regularity, order, and obedience in your soldiers. (V.i.a.20-21) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Smith notes, with confidence that a militia is always going to be inferior to a well-disciplined and well-exercised standing army.
*American SmithTweeting contingent whistles Yankee Doodle in upstart colonial*
(V.i.a.23–25) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Oh, okay. The colonials get some props from Smith a little later. If the war with Britain drags out long enough they may become a match for the standing army. (V.i.a.27–28) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
That said, standing armies are just irresistibly superior unless militias are engaged in such long campaigns that they equalize. (V.i.a.27–28) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
When one nation develops a standing army, other nations must follow suit for their own protection. (V.i.a.37) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Oh, hey, here’s that “savage nations” thread. Just in case that's something you might be thinking about right now as Smith carefully explains that only standing armies can protect against barbarian invasions... (V.i.a.39–40) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
...And equally carefully explains that you need a standing army in order to civilize barbarians and establish the law of the sovereign with “irresistible force.” (V.i.a.40) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Lots of people argue that standing armies are dangerous to liberty. That can be true. But if the king is the general, the nobility are the chief officers, and the commanders support the civil authority, a standing army isn’t a threat. (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
(Does anyone else think that’s a whole pile of conditions that need to be met before a standing army isn’t a concern? Especially given the references to Caesar and Cromwell? Maybe it’s just us…) (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
On the other hand, says Smith, a standing army can give a sovereign a sense of security that means he doesn’t have to crack down as hard on the people as he would otherwise.
So, weirdly, a standing army can→more liberty. (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The duty of maintaining national defense gets more expensive as society becomes wealthier and war becomes more complicated. Cannons cost more than javelins. (V.i.a.43) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
This means that, unlike in ancient times, it’s now easier for developed and wealthy nations to defend themselves. That’s good, Smith says, for preserving and extending civilization. (V.i.a.44) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
(We, the SmithTweeters, are not military historians. But we’re pretty sure that a lot of what Smith says here doesn’t hold up throughout the 20th century... Anyone want to help us out with that before we come back tomorrow to talk about justice?) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Remember how #AdamSmith was going to explain the Mercantile and Agricultural systems? After 230 pages on the Mercantile system it’s finally time for the Agricultural! ...which gets 25 pages. (IV.ix) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
He’s got a pretty good reason for keeping this brief: A national political economy based entirely on agriculture has never existed except in the minds of French philosophers. Why spend a lot of time on it? (IV.ix.1–2) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The French philosophers were 😍 with the idea of a purely agricultural system because of the favoritism shown to a purely mercantile system under Louis XIV and his minister Colbert. But both systems were out of balance.(IV.ix.3–4) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
We made it, everyone! It's the conclusion of the discussion of the mercantile system! (IV.viii.) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The mercantile system tries to maintain the “balance of trade” by encouraging exports and discouraging imports. Counterintuively, sometimes that's done by encouraging imports. (IV.viii.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Manufacturers demand that their inputs be imported without duties or with bounties. Smith thinks that's a great start, but they should eliminate all duty on manufacturing imports, not just the ones demanded by the manufacturers. (IV.viii.2–3) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
It's been a whole day since we tweeted Part 2 of this chapter, so let us remind you: #AdamSmith just said that the colonies got nothing that helped them succeed from the mother country. (IV.vii.c) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
So these two opening sentences are pretty heckin’ sarcastic:
Now we've seen the great advantages the colonies got (they got nothing!) (IV.vii.c.1)
So what have been the great advantages to Europe! (IV.vii.c.2)
Europeans buy goods from America, and Americans buy European goods as well. Even countries that don’t trade directly with America have benefited. (IV.vii.c.3–8) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
In yesterday’s discussion of colonies, #AdamSmith was really good on a lot of issues—particularly on condemning murdering Indigenous people, despoiling colonies in search of gold that ain't there, and then pretending you're doing it all for God. #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Today, Smithketeers, will not be such a feel-good day. You will not be heartened. You might want to pour a cup of tea. Or something much stronger. #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Smith starts by noting that the colonies of developed nations where the “natives easily give place to the new settlers” get rich and cultured faster than anywhere else.
OK. Chapter 7 of Book 4 of #WealthOfNations is tough going. It's long. It's serious. It's all about colonies.
We can take comfort, though, in knowing that the chapter #AdamSmith says is about colonies is, in fact, about colonies. (IV.vii) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Colonies were a vexed subject when #AdamSmith was writing, and they’re even more complicated now. So, before we even get to the tweeting, here’s a link to that thread on Smith and “savage nations.” (IV.vii) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
The reason for the ancient Greeks and Romans to settle colonies was straightforward: they didn’t have enough space for their growing populations. Their colonies were treated as “emancipated children”—connected but independent. (IV.vii.a.2) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets
Dear Smithketeers. Over many chapters of #WealthOfNations, we've grown close. We were even going to ask all of you to be our Valentines.
And we have to tell you:
More like, "Of the reasons the Author is opposed to Treaties generally and the Treaty with Portugal in particular." (IV .vi) #WealthOfTweets
But FINE. Here we go:
Countries that bind themselves via a treaty to offer special treatment to the merchants and manufacturers of another country are granting them a sort of monopoly over their market. (IV. vi.1) #WealthOfTweets#SmithTweets