Miller - Blog Post 1

 

January 27th, 2021

In the section, “Of Public Jurisprudence,” Smith speaks about why people enter civil society. He asserts that there are two principles that are responsible, authority and utility. Speaking first on the principle of authority, Smith claims that “At the head of every small society or association of men, we find a person of superior abilities” (Par. 12), and that this “superiority” gives a person authority over the other members of their society. 

Smith also describes the second principle that draws people to enter civil society, which is utility. In Par. 14, He claims that people agree to obey the civil magistrate because they know that justice and peace are necessary aims and that the poor are willing to be under the authority of the rich and powerful because civil institutions allow them to get redress when they are wronged. It is interesting to compare Smith’s logic to Locke’s reasoning for why people leave the state of nature. In Chapter IX, Locke asserts that in the state of nature, people are “exposed to the invasion of others” (Par. 123), and that the preservation of their property is not assured. As a result, they are willing to enter the common-wealth. 

At first, Locke may seem similar to Smith, who claims people enter civil society because they want justice and peace, and that civil government and property are inextricably linked. However, Locke’s rationale differs from Smith’s in a fundamental way; the reason that an individual's property is not secured, according to Locke, is because of equality. Locke writes, “for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe” (Par. 123). While Smith seems to suggest that inequality drives the poor to enter civil society for protection, Locke claims that it is the perils of equality (and equal ability) in the state of nature that drives people to enter the common-wealth.

Smith provides further justification for the principle of utility when he explains that it is public utility (as opposed to private) that “influences men to obedience” (Par. 14). He acknowledges that while it may not always be in a man’s best interest to obey the government, it is unlikely that his fellow men would agree with him or assist him in a rebellion, so he will go along with the government “for the good of the whole” (Par. 14).  In making this argument, Smith seems to insinuate that it would be going against one’s best interest to go along with the good of the whole. While initially, a given government decision may seem against one’s best interest, the alternative, rebellion, which often leads to violence, appears to be more threatening to one’s interests. Therefore, it seems as though going with the good of the whole can simultaneously be in one’s best interest in the larger scheme, even when a particular government decision is not. It is possible, then, that it is not public utility, but instead private that “influences men to obedience.”