ivashkiv blog 1

 Unlike Locke, Smith does not believe in the implicit contract between the magistrate and its citizens. Instead, Smith posits that men enter into a civil society because of what he calls authority and utility. 

Smith argues that the leaders of different societies are superior to the rest of the general population in some way. Age, intelligence, and power are three ways for someone to their superiority, but Smith argues that money is the most influential sign of superiority (402). A monarchy relies on this sense of authority to cement its rule. The other reason to enter a civil society is utility. What Smith calls “justice,” personal protection, is a worthy reason to live under the rule of someone else (399). A republic relies on utility to maintain its power. 

Smith outlines the progression from a barbaric state to a civil society. Basically, at each stage in this progression, power is taken from the collective and given to the leader. Smith’s argument that power is consolidated at each stage in such a linear way is suspect. In his example, a primitive hunter-gatherer society requires complete agreement of all of its members before any major action, like engaging in war with a different family or moving areas, is taken. Intuitively, this seems wrong. Smith told us that, in a group of people, someone is superior in some way. He also told us that in a “warlike society” this person would be the person who is “most physically gifted” (401). According to Smith’s logic, this most skilled hunter would be the de-facto leader of a hunter-gatherer society. Maybe the leader of a more modern society would have more power over their society than the hypothetical I described above, but Smith does not give a relevant reason as to why this would be the case. Even the idea that a modernized society has more needs than a primitive one is insufficient. One could argue that the hunter responsible for providing the essential need of food is more influential than a leader in a society that has a system of checks and balances.

Smith’s theory stems from his disagreement with the concept of “tacit consent” that Locke describes (p 118). Smith completely objects to the idea of a contract between citizens and their magistrate. According to Locke, anyone who has “possessions” or “enjoyment” in a civil society has given their consent to be ruled (p 118). The example of a barbaric state that Smith uses attempts to show an example of a person who has possessions but is not ruled over. However, Smith fails to show the reader that his example includes people who are not ruled over.