The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

Or consider this section of the Wikipedia article on Smith’s biography called “The Adam Smith Problem”.

In the Wealth of Nations Smith claims that self-interest alone (in a proper institutional setting) can lead to socially beneficial results. But in his Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith argues that sympathy is required to achieve socially beneficial results. On the surface it appears that a contradiction exists. Economist August Oncken referred to this in German as das ‘Adam Smith-Problem’.[9] Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter also emphasized this apparent contradiction in his commentary on Smith’s work.

Adam Smith himself cannot have seen any contradiction, since he produced a revised edition of Moral Sentiments after the publication of Wealth of Nations. Both sets of ideas are to be found in his Lectures on Jurisprudence. In recent years most students of Adam Smith’s work have argued that no contradiction exists. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith develops a theory of psychology in which individuals in society find it in their self-interest to develop sympathy as they seek approval of what he calls the “impartial spectator.” The self-interest he speaks of is not a narrow selfishness but something that involves sympathy.

Some readers of The Wealth of Nations have assumed that when Smith speaks of “self-interest” he is referring to selfishness. Although in some contexts, such as buying and selling, sympathy generally need not be considered, Smith makes it clear that he regards selfishness as inappropriate, if not immoral, and that the self-interested actor has sympathy for others. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith argues that the self-interest of any actor includes the interest of the rest of society, since the socially-defined notions of appropriate and inappropriate actions necessarily affect the interests of the individual as a member of society. Context is also useful as Adam Smith was against the idea of corporations, or “joint stock companies.”

In any case, Adam Smith apparently believed that moral sentiments and self-interest would always add up to the same thing. One possible line of reasoning he might have employed in reaching this conclusion is as follows: the invisible hand cannot operate if there is no society, for precluding a societal construct precludes division of labor, and thus, the efficiency which comes with its manifestation. Now for society to exist, justice is a necessary condition (as pointed out in Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments). For justice to exist in any social setting, individuals must harbor the passions of gratitude and resentment governed by a sense of ‘merit’ and ‘demerit’ (again from Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments). And finally, as Smith himself would have so vehemently argued, the sense of ‘merit’ and ‘demerit’ is almost exclusively engendered by human sympathy. In conclusion, the invisible hand of the market is, at some level, contingent upon the ability of humans to sympathize: Smith’s self-interest is indeed in consonance with the notion of sympathy.

It really doesn’t matter who started it,

The Clintons did. 1994 was the reaction.

if she is in the Oval Office its going to be all that crap all over again. This time everyone has had a decade to rehearse their parts for the American Politics Show. And there seems to be only one channel that plays it 24/7.

This is where I agree with Kritter that people have had time to put her and her behavior in perspective and while Americans are wary of the Clintons being in the White House again, it is true that people are not as critical now as they were then (if for no other reason than that the Clintons are not currently in the White House and haven’t done anything outrageous lately), and it’s largely a matter of waiting to see after Clinton is elected (I believe she will be elected) how far left she and her husband move after returning to the White House. We’re forced to wait and see; presumably they have learned some lessons and won’t be as provocative and outrageous this time (just as they learned some lessons during Bill’s first term). I suspect people’s expectations that some lessons have been learned affect how they view Hillary Clinton as possibly (even probably) our next President. And they probably believe she’s the more capable, less self-indulgent of the two.

Has Romney ever actually read even extensive summaries of Adam Smith, much less his actual work?

If Hillary Clinton has, she has a comeback, not only with Smith’s words but with a non-liberal complaint about big government, thrown back at him:

“To quote Adam Smith: ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.’ This sounds a lot like the scandals we have seen with contractors in Iraq, or with energy policy in this country. And he does not want that to change! I do want that to change! While he may want an ‘invisible hand,’ one that permits such things to happen, I am not afraid to say it’s time instead for the highly visible foot!“

It really doesn’t matter who started it, if she is in the Oval Office its going to be all that crap all over again. This time everyone has had a decade to rehearse their parts for the American Politics Show. And there seems to be only one channel that plays it 24/7.

Krit, all of that is true. But she also has negatives in the stratosphere…and unlike Bill, she can’t finesse her mistakes with charm – when wounded she lashes out. Aside from the bimbo eruptions, many of the scandals of the Clinton era (literally) had her fingerprints on them.

I always thought there was something calculated in Rove’s making her the “threat”. He is smart enough to know that when he indicates an enemy, the instinctive reaction of liberals would be to rally around the anti-Rove.

Obama is the GOP nightmare because he is a new break with the past…can touch idealism in American in a way Hillary’s triangulation can’t…he doesn’t have Hillary’s negatives, nor her value of fundraising among GOP.

The GOP is hoping beyond hope she doesn’t flame out early (with Hsu, or Berger, or some other skeleton in the closet).

In all honesty, I believe Hillary holds the fate of the GOP’s immediate future in her hands.

she has been successful in winning over many of her critics

Agreed. The we-must-stop-Hillary crowd actually is not very large (or loud).

She has developed some critics now on the Left because of her war stance, but I believe on election day that the lefties will vote for her anyway.

she makes few mistakes and that her organizational skills and ability to absorb details is formidable

No argument. And the GOP contenders are lightweight (and turn off many of the voters).

don’t see how the GOP can win

It doesn’t look possible right now, especially with Hillary playing her “moderate” or “centrist” role (which will fool a lot of people). We’ll have to look to another miracle like in 2000 where Al Gore looked to easily be able to beat Bush, then proceeded to lose; I believe if Hillary commits more blunders like hiring Sandy Berger, or shifts too far left (and gives substance to the we-must-stop-Hillary crowd’s expressed fears) then the GOP has a chance. It’s up to her more than it is up to the GOP.

I don’t see how the GOP can win

It probably can’t, unless the Democrats become overconfident and blow it. So, keep up the good work, Kim! LOL

Judith Giuliani, who is best known for booking a seat for her purse on a plane,

Um, I’d never heard that until I read one of the last several times you’d mentioned it, but if you say so.

But if Republicans think that all they have to do is wait until she wins the nomination to get the party back in gear, they need to realize that she has been successful in winning over many of her critics. Why do you think everyone from Karl Rove to President Bush is warning about a Hillary win? Talk radio hosts have formed “Stop Hillary” movements, LOL. Anyone can see they are running scared.

Even her opposition now treats her campaign with respect, and with the realization that she makes few mistakes and that her organizational skills and ability to absorb details is formidable. Plus she is married to Bill-the most popular Democrat alive. No way Judith Giuliani, who is best known for booking a seat for her purse on a plane, will measure up as a counterpart.

I don’t see how the GOP can win- if they run a conservative like Thompson, they lose the middle, if they run Giuliani, they lose the Christian right, if they run McCain they lose the anti-immigrant crowd, and as much as a third of the GOP has come out and stated they won’t vote for a Mormon.

We’ve had enough of divisive politics and screaming radio folks since the 90’s

It was Hillary back then who was so divisive. It was she who produced the 1994 election results (which shocked elites out of touch with real Americans). The political talk shows, some of which are loud (not screaming sessions, but loud), will get a boost if Hillary is elected President, particularly if once in the White House again she moves well to the left in her policy objectives and actions. (Her viciousness, worse than any claimed for the talk shows who are critical of her, will also repel decent people once more.) I find Rush Limbaugh’s show to be boring and “tired” on the few occasions I’ve listened to it for a moment or two; Hillary as President would re-inject life into his show and could enable Limbaugh to retire with a final flourish.

Also, the only slim hope the GOP has of getting someone in office resides with Hillary as the democratic nomination.

Her presidency would repel a nation.

…again, if she reverts to 1993-1994 arrogance once in office, drops her phony “centrist” or “moderate” mask, and lurches leftward.

I just noticed on Memorandum that Sandy Berger has returned as a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton…despite his security clearance being stripped, and his refusal to answer questions about what he really stole from the archives (he chose to yield his law license rather than face questioning).

Can you imagine how Hillary’s face would freeze into her smiling mask if she was asked about Berger in the presidential debates?

Hillary has SOOOO much baggage. The primaries have not even started, and the wackiness (Hsu etc.) is seeping out of her campaign. The MSM is critically reporting on her strong-arming the media (cf. snuffing the GQ critical article).

Go Hillary!!!!!

Pennywit said: “the anti-Hillary is that they’ll fire up the disconsolate GOP base … and not much more.”

I disagree…Hillary Clinton is easily the BEST candidate from a GOP perspective. The MSM is sceptical of her – unlike its gushing over Obama – and she has negatives in the stratosphere.

Plus, if she becomes President, it would be a godsend to American conservatives-currently in the wilderness after years of political dominance.

If you read any of the insider accounts of the Clinton Admin like Stepanopolous’ etc….Hillary is the one with the “Enemies List” who only masked her venom with difficulty. Bill had his issues, but he could often find some common ground or charm opponents (c.f. Bush elder, or Bob Dole).

Barring a Republican victory, Hillary is the second-best outcome for Conservatives. Her presidency would repel a nation. In contrast, an Obama candidacy would likely be a GOP nightmare scenario.

Fortunately, the Democrats can be expected to help the American conservative movement, and nominate Hillary. Let the “Culture Wars – Round 2″ begin….

The Clintons have been sending the message by their appearances on FNC and statements in Democratic debates, that they do understand how to fight back. That’s the big difference and why I will probably end up voting for Hillary. Obama is great, but Hillary is proving that she alone really knows how to succeed in this atmosphere. The Clintons are showing Democrats how to grow a tougher skin in order to take on the Limbaughs and the Hannitys, who do sway a great number of voters.

That’s supposed to disqualify her?

Remember, in 2004, that same noise machine only needed a few weeks to turn a decorated war hero into a coward.

–|PW|–