Capitalism in America today is just what Adam Smith ordered

CAPITALISM vs. ANARCHY

The published letter from Darrell McGuire reflects common misunderstandings about the economic theory of capitalism perpetrated by the propaganda of a few elites trying co-opt and misrepresent the theory of Adam Smith in a way he would find unrecognizable, confusing his theory of market economics (capitalism) with a lack of regulation or responsible oversight (laissez-faire).

McGuire clearly has no understanding of what “freedom” means. “Freedom” does not mean an absence of rules; that is chaos or anarchy, not freedom. Absolute freedom for one person means zero freedom for everyone else. Rules, regulations and oversight are required in order to maintain order, and to MAXIMIZE freedom for all.

A protective regulatory framework that sets the boundaries defining where you must be restricted from harming others does not in any restrict an infinite range of freedoms within that framework. As I have said many times, the rules of sports do not restrict an infinite range of possibilities, such that no two games have ever been the same, they make it possible; the rules of the road do not prevent you from getting in your car and driving anywhere you want, they make it possible.

Capitalism originates from the theories espoused by Adam Smith, a liberal, in his seminal five-volume masterpiece, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," written in 1776 in London. Yes, it is about the “invisible hand” of the “free” market. But “free” does not mean chaotic or in anarchy. It wouldn’t take FIVE VOLUMES for Smith to just say, “abolish all government.”

The fact is that Smith supported progressive taxes (Book V, Chapter 2, Article I), proportionality of profits (Book I, Chapter 6), public oversight of rental policies (Book I, Chapter 11), and saw the role of government as including public infrastructure, SOCIAL JUSTICE, and public order (Book IV, Chapter 9). And all this in a book written in a time of largely rural, agrarian societies, when mercantile endeavors were largely Mom and Pop butchers, bakers and candlestick makers -- not behemoth corporations with enormous capacity (or rapacity) to concentrate wealth and power and develop huge capacities to do great harm to workers and consumers.

While no one can say how he would have adapted his theories to the complexities of the modern industrial, high-tech area, the idea that Smith would equate capitalism with laissez-faire -- a term that he had never used in the entire five volumes, though the term goes back to a 1736 speech by René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (40 years earlier), and first appears in print in 1751, 25 years before his work.
A man of Smith’s education would surely be familiar with that term; its omission seems intentional and refutes McGuires nonsense.

Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz