Our deplorable ignorance about Adam Smith
(Re: “Il ne marche pas,” 26 November 2001)
Rob Thomas may have memorized an assortment of pithy French phrases, but he has evidently not done his homework on Adam Smith. Mr. Thomas asserts that Adam Smith’s revolutionary work on economics was completed in 1759. On the contrary, his Wealth of Nations was composed between 1765 and 1776.
In 1759 Smith published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, a great masterpiece of moral and political philosophy which established the social basis for his future economic research. Unfortunately, gaffes of this sort are to be expected in an age where Adam Smith is rarely read and seldom studied. Mr Thomas’s ignorance points to our broader ignorance. Pundits today assume the “simplicity” of capitalism and therefore of Adam Smith’s teaching, and think that they have understood it without great effort. Yet Adam Smith’s actual teaching was extremely nuanced and complex.
He did not, as both Mr. Thomas and the Objectivists seem to believe, teach that the life of economic selfishness is inherently good, but regarded it as a necessary evil which a few deluded men would practice so that the rest of society could flourish. The wealth seekers (who, in Smith’s memorable phrase, chase after “baubles and trinkets”) would suffer from insatiable appetites and chronic anxiety, but the riches they produced—as long as they were regulated by government and law—would diffuse throughout the larger society, allowing the great mass of more prudent and less ambitious citizens to find satisfaction in a modicum of material comfort. At the same time, the overweening ambition of the Caesars and Alexanders, which had so often led to wars of revolution and conquest in the past, would be channelled toward the pursuit of money, a far more frivolous and therefore benign thing.
I find it particularly appalling that the greatest advocate for the economic system that has completely transformed human life is no longer studied seriously. This situation will have to change if we wish to enhance the quality of contemporary debates about capitalism. For who would feel confident enough to make sweeping proclamations about the value of modern theoretical physics without having studied Einstein?
Alexander Orwin
Fair and balanced view of Afghanistan
(Re: “Afghanistan at war,” 29 November 2001.)
I read the article by Mr. Ghaznawi and I really liked it a lot and I feel that he is the only one who is speaking the truth amongst the jungle of journalists and columnists commenting on Afghanistan.
He is the only one I heard talking without taking sides or discriminating between these warlords because of their ethnicity.
I quite agree with all the points he made about these warlords and their so-called special interests as leaders.
All they want from war is money and they don’t ever want Afghanistan to be a peaceful place because then they would have no source of income.
Mr. Ghaznawi spoke as an Afghan, nothing else, and that’s the best part of it.
The college he belongs to must be proud to have such an intelligent student.
Zarlakhta Rahman
Sorrow and quiet, unyielding anger
(Re: Suicide bombings in Israel.)
How many times have we heard this on the news? Yet another member of a Palestinian militant group blew himself up, taking the lives of dozens of innocent people. Just as the September 11 attacks, these bombings fill me with sorrow and a quiet, unyielding anger.
It has become abundantly clear that Yassar Arafat cannot control the people in Palestinian Authority-controlled territory. He cannot stop the violence. It is also clear that Israel must act decisively to protect the lives of its citizens. Either Arafat is incapable of stopping the bombings, or he does not want to. Either way, it does not matter.
It is quite clear now who the US must target next in their war against terrorism. For no matter how justified a cause may seem, resulting to senseless, brutal, horrific murder with innocent civilians as the target in my mind totally invalidates any point they may have been trying to make.
Adam Schweitzer
Greenpeace an example to our government
(Re: “Greenpeace ‘guerrilla action’ labels genetically engineered food,” 3 December 2001.)
Greenpeace, your devoted concern for the health and environmental well-being of our society remains an inspiration to us all. It is safe to say that there are indeed genetically engineered foods available on shelves for purchase today. Yet, it is sad to say that these particular foods hold no labelled indication so as to inform the public that they are purchasing foods of this nature.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Greenpeace. Our government guarantees us citizens the right to life, liberty and security of person. Is it not then only impartial that this private members bill requiring grocery stores to label genetically engineered foods and items to be passed? Surely the government’s failure to do so would be an indirect violation of that right. There are indeed known health and environmental risks associated with certain genetically engineered foods. In other foods of this nature, there may be none.
Be there risks or not, it is the public’s right to know what types of food they are purchasing for their families—nationally, this would strongly contribute to Canada’s stature as one of the world’s best health care nations. Of course there are some genetically engineered foods that seem to pose no threats to health upon usage, but untested as they are, are we unconsciously submitting as human guinea pigs for giant food manufacturers? Greenpeace, your actions have once again shown your true compassion for citizens as well as the nation as a whole. Now it is up to the government to follow your example.
Tristan Marajh
