how do adam smith's thought sreflect influences from locke and rousseaeu?

[s.hyun]

The Wealth of Nations

[harriet]

I don't know, but perhaps someone in the LITERACY category may know?

[Softtouchmale]

All three were political-economic philosophers and theoreticians during the Age of Enlightenment.

John Locke believed that natural law, that is human society was organic in nature, that is that people would lived together based on a common, moral ground which would dictate rules of interaction. A government would ordinarily not be necessary; however because in nature the strongest typically utilize brute force to get what they want, rather than what society is willing to let them receive in exchange for their labor and participation in society, governments become necessary. That is that a government has an obligation to protect the weak from the strong and to punish wrongdoers. The rise of governments, however, invites abuses where the government now becomes the stronger, and then takes what it wants.

Locke's final argument is that through the social compact (a constitution), a government's legitimacy may be contained.

Rousseau believed that government power must be divided. He first created the theory of the Sovereign. That is something along the lines of Hobbes' Leviathan, but not really. The sovereign in Rousseau's ideal world consists of all of the people. They create their own legislature through referendum and by making laws. The people are directly in charge of the law-making aspects.

The government is separate from the sovereign in Rousseau's world. The government consists of all of the departments that enforce the law and interpret it when necessary. The stipulation in Rousseau's ideal world is that the social compact or contract between the people (sovereign) both amongst each other and between them and the government is that if the government becomes oppressive, the people have a right to dissolve it and form a new government. And if the government refuses dissolution, it may be overthrown.

Adam Smith in Book IV of Wealth of Nations attacks the ancient forms of government. Smith posits that government should be separate from the economy altogether. That it should have no direct ties to financial sectors. Smith took the position that public education for the poor, a judiciary, and a strong military are necessary. I believe these are the forerunners to the concept of the modern police-powers of health, safety and social welfare.

Smith's complete argument is that the best economy is one where the invisible hand of the market place, supply and demand, dictates what products will be offered and which products will fail. He also predicted that the least amount of governmental interference allows the marketplace to flourish and as it does, opulence and wealth will accumulate to everyone.

Rousseau believed that there should be economic liberty and equality as well as political equality. However Rousseau believed that these humanistic goals are the responsibility of the entire society.

Smith posits that those who are able will succeed, those not will fail, but in the end all people will reach the level of economic liberty that they deserve through market forces.

Locke on the other hand had a different point of view. That is that the government had to have an active hand in guiding everything because without that, the strong would abuse the weak.

Smith disregarded much of Locke and Rousseau focusing on economic liberty as the principle form of social structure with the government having practically no hand in running things. Rousseau believed the government took care of many issues, per the will of the people but that all people should be responsible for protecting and advancing those disadvantaged.

Smith foretold economic Darwinism, as did Locke. Rousseau did not see it that way.