Better than a Rope of Sand: Cohesion in a Commercial Society
Better than a Rope of Sand: Cohesion in a Commercial Society

Summary/Abstract: Do Smith, Hume and other Scots have an argument to reject John Brown’s claim in his Estimate that a society based on self-interest lacks cohesion? And can they do so without accepting Hobbes’ argument that the necessary cohesion can only be provided by the threat of coercion from a sovereign? The research problem and methods: Problem: The eighteenth century debate on the nature of commercial society. Method: Analysis of key texts in the debate as it occurred in Scotland. The process of argumentation: The Scots argue that a society where every man lives by exchanging, operating on the assumption of self-interest, is a more peaceable, more equitable and thus more cohesive than that envisioned by Brown. When reinforced by the rule of law, self-interested behavior supports mutually supportive behavior. Ultimately this embodies a constant and universal principle of human nature. Human behavior is not random or chaotic and a commercial society not only exemplifies that fact but also sustains a form of societal life superior to any that has one before. Research results: Nostalgia for an earlier time is mis-placed. For all its vehemence Brown’s critique is mis-directed and thus unjustified. Conclusion, innovations and recommendations: This selection of the Scots should be widened to investigate whether Ferguson, Kames, Wallace among others have the same resources as Hume and Smith to rebut Brown.

• Details
• Contents