This was the first search result for "neoreaction "adam smith"". Turns out that if it wasn't for Brin...this post wouldn't have been a result.
I'm going to try and help both of you out...
Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible. - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful LibertarianismThe problem isn't with the masses being stupid sheep. Nope. It has to do with the fact that they all want a free lunch. They are only too happy to try and externalize the costs of their benefits. As a result of this very faulty input, resources are redirected from more valuable uses to less valuable uses.
Neoreactionaries correctly discern that there is a problem with democracy...but they lack the economics to correctly diagnose the problem. As a result, they end up barking up the really wrong tree. Brin should have, but didn't, point this out. Why didn't he?
The solution is simple...we create a market in the public sector. If Brin doesn't support this solution...can he still cite Hayek and Smith?
I have just summarized Hayek and Smith correctly. And dig this… neo reactionaries want to set up systems that will reduce the net number of deliberators, decision makers and allocators FAR below the requisite smart mob that Smith and Hayek recommend. Do not cite Smith or Hayek, you insult them.Nope, if Brin doesn't support tax choice (many more "allocators and deciders")...then he can't cite Smith or Hayek either. Personally, I can cite both for days...
It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsIf government planners can't discern the "natural proportion" of milk, then clearly they can't discern the "natural proportion" of defense. By definition, you can't discern one without the other. If Smith could have stood on his own shoulders...then he certainly would have figured it out. Hayek missed it because Mises missed it. Rothbard caught it...but then his solution was to destroy the entire public sector. Errr...yeah. He missed the part where taxation and individual taxation are not mutually exclusive.
So...I'm just kidding about revoking Brin's citation rights. We need more, not less, people citing Smith and Hayek.
In case anybody is curious...the reason I searched for "neoreaction "adam smith"" was because I was curious whether any neoreactionaries had shared this passage from Smith...
Even a bad sovereign feels more compassion for his people than can ever be expected from the farmers of his revenue. He knows that the permanent grandeur of his family depends upon the prosperity of his people, and he will never knowingly ruin that prosperity for the sake of any momentary interest of his own. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsIf any neoreactionary wants to cite Adam Smith in defense of monarchism...then I suppose that would be a pretty decent passage to use. But if any neoreactionary wants to defend monarchism...then...errrr...perhaps they should do a "bit" more reading.