A friend reproached me for my support for Remain. I thought you were a fan of Adam Smith, he said, who, he assured me would most assuredly have been a fervent Brexiteer as he would have opposed the closed shop of the EU and its regulatory and bureaucratic structures. I emailed him the following.
"The love of our own nation often disposes us to view, with the most malignant jealousy and envy, the prosperity and aggrandisement of any other neighbouring nation. Independent and neighbouring nations, having no common superior to decide their disputes, all live in continual dread and suspicion of one another. Each sovereign, expecting little justice from his neighbours, is disposed to treat them with as little as he expects from them. The regard for the laws of nations, or for those rules which independent states profess or pretend to think themselves bound to observe in their dealing with one another, is often little more than mere pretence and profession. From the smallest interest, upon the slightest provocation, we see those rules every day, either evaded or directly violated without shame or remorse. Each nation foresees, or imagines it foresees, its own subjugation in the increasing power and aggrandisement of any of its neighbours; and the mean principle of national prejudice is often founded upon the noble one of the love of our own country. The sentence with which the elder Cato is said to have concluded every speech which he made in the senate, whatever might be the subject, “It is my opinion likewise that Carthage ought to be destroyed” was the natural expression of the savage patriotism of a strong but coarse mind, enraged almost to madness against a foreign nation from which has own had suffered so much. The more humane sentence with which Scipio Nasica is said to have concluded all his speeches “It is my opinion likewise that Carthage ought not to be destroyed” was the liberal expression of a more enlarged and enlightened mind, who felt no aversion to the prosperity even of an old enemy, when reduced to a state which could no longer be formidable to Rome. France and England may each of them have some reason to dread the increase of the naval and military power of the other; but for either of them to envy the internal happiness and prosperity of the other, the cultivation of its lands, the advancements of its manufactures, the increase of its commerce, the security and number of its ports and harbours, its proficiency in all the liberal arts and sciences, is surely beneath the dignity of two such great nations. These are all improvements of the world we live in. Mankind are benefited, human nature is ennobled by them. In such improvements each nation ought, not only to endeavour itself to excel, but from the love of mankind, to promote, instead of obstructing the excellence of its neighbours. These are all proper objects of national emulation, not of national prejudice or envy".
If that is not an argument for a community of nations such as the EU, for tolerance and a celebration of diversity, and a thorough rejection of the narrow minded sectarian, exclusive campaign that was victorious last week then I don't know what it is. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who turned his genius to an analysis of the human behaviour we call economic. His economics was a quite different species of intellectual achievement from the fraudulent insult that passes for economics in the modern world, presented to us by a parcel of rogues who demean the very essence of the discipline of economics, and yes, I am speaking about the great and the good from our most distinguished so-called seats of learning. I remind you what I have said before, we live in a world where we treat people who may be well schooled as if they were well educated. The pigsty is full of such creatures. With respect to the leave campaign, I asked my friend to consider the following and contemplate who Smith's observations here might refer to.
"Amidst the turbulence and disorder of faction, a certain spirit of system is apt to mix itself with that public spirit which is founded upon the love of humanity, upon a real fellow feeling with the inconveniences and distresses to which some of our fellow-citizens may be exposed. This spirit of system commonly takes the direction of that more gentle public spirit; always animates it and often inflames it even to the madness of fanaticism. The leaders of the discontented party seldom fail to hold out some plausible plan of reformation which, they pretend, will not only remove the inconveniencies and relieve the distresses immediately complained of, but will prevent, in all time coming, any return of the like inconveniencies and distresses. They often propose, upon this account, to new-model the constitution, and to alter, in some of its most essential parts, that system of government under which the subjects of a great empire have enjoyed, perhaps, peace, security, and even glory, during the course of several centuries together. The great body of the party are commonly intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this of this ideal system, of which they have no experience, but which has been represented to them in all the most dazzling colours in which the eloquence of their leaders could paint it. Those leaders themselves, though they originally may have meant nothing but their own aggrandisement, become many of them in time the dupes of their own sophistry, and are as eager for this great reformation as the weakest and foolishest of their followers. Even though the leaders should have preserved their own heads, as indeed they commonly do, free from this fanaticism, yet they dare not always disappoint the expectations of their followers; but are often obliged, though contrary to their principle and their conscience, to act as if they were under the common delusion".
If you want a reason why The Spider had a change of heart, you would do well to consider Smith's reflections here. Perhaps he is genuinely ashamed of his promotion of this common delusion. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
No comments:
Post a Comment