One of those boys, who loved to play with his companions, observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve, which opened this communication, to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance, and leave him at liberty to divert himself with his play-fellows.--Adam Smith (1776) Wealth of Nations. 1.1.8
Adam Smith introduces liberty, en passant, in the quoted passage at the start of Wealth of Nations. In context, he is explaining how technological improvements are often made from the bottom up, as it were, on the work-floor by relatively youthful "common workmen;" the contrast class is filled with "philosophers" (who, it turns out, within the division of labor also make contributions to technological improvement). And while Smith is illustrating technology driven productivity gains, he is also making a point about intellectual egalitarianism (the working class and the young can be just as smart as the educated gentry). According to Smith boys -- and it is possible that these are quite young (Wikipedia reports that "in England and Scotland in 1788, two-thirds of the workers in 143 water-powered cotton mills were described as children") -- want to play. (In all the passages that I quote in this post, work is performed by men.)* In the quoted passage, something akin to control one's time in a manner of one's choosing is liberty.
Now, one may think that the use of 'liberty' in the quoted passage is a kind of throw-away remark. We all know that for Smith the 'system of natural liberty' involves free trade, free movement/settlement) based on the liberty to contract (in employment); liberty is about the possibility to compete in free markets. We can point to this oft-quoted passage to illustrate the claim:
All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. WN 4.9.51
Here I am not going to re-enter the ongoing debate over to what degree Smith accepts limitations on natural liberty (as is well known, quite a few when you add them up). Here I just want to note that in this passage liberty is the freedom to pursue one's own interest in one's own way (if one does not harm others [recall here, too]). It is natural to think, of course, that Smith understands this pursuit of one's interest entirely in economic or commercial fashion. I used to read it that way, too, primarily based on this passage:
The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. (1.10.67)
Here "liberty" really seems to mean liberty of contract (as long one does not harm others). But it is worth noting that here, too, the freedom of contract is founded in a kind of self-ownership (of body), or foundational property right [recall here, here, and here], that allows one to control oneself in a manner one thinks proper. That is to say, we have found the following three ways of understanding liberty:
- control of one's time in a manner of one's choosing
- pursuit of one's interest in one's own way
- self-control in a manner one thinks proper.
These three uses of 'liberty' clearly have a family resemblance and seem to be the species of the same general general concept. The latter two occur in economic and legal contexts, but the first involves a kind of freedom from working (to pursue leisure activities/play). The general concept involves (some mixture of) self-ownership, the ability to exercise one's judgment (Fleischacker has emphasized this), and the possibility to make meaningful choices.
A skeptical reader may argue that the first instance of 'liberty' quoted at the top of the post is just a slender example, and that we should not read too much into it. But, in fact, Smith uses liberty in a very similar sense in one of the key passages at the analytical core of his system:
Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength and spirits; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness: The price which he pays must always be the same, whatever may be the quantity of goods which he receives in return for it. Wealth of Nations, 1.5.7
Enormous amount of ink has been spilled over these three sentences (which are often treated as Smith's account of the labor theory of value [I have tackled the issue here]). To be anachronistic, in the passage Smith is describing a kind of opportunity cost involved in labour. (It's also natural to modern economists to read the passage as describing a kind of standardized dis-utility in work.) Equal quantities of labour involve the giving up the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness. What matters to present purposes, is that rather than describing paid/contracted work as an instance of liberty, work is the hardship that involves a giving up of liberty (and ease, even happiness--Smith does not really allow happy work in the analytical core of his system, although he recognizes it elsewhere).
So, to sum up: for Smith, the core concept of liberty presupposes a kind of self-ownership that allows one to exercise one's judgment in order to make meaningful choices.+ (This is not quite the (Republican) liberty of the ancients nor quite the liberty of the moderns.) One of these choices is the liberty to contract, but it is by no means the paradigmatic instance of this liberty because one gives up liberty to exercise it; if anything, to play, while under contract, is to be at liberty just ask the boys.
*Some feminist historians of economics have suggested that Smith ignores women's work entirely. While it is true that Smith ignores the gendered injustices involved in women's work, a careful reader of Wealth of Nations will also find Smith discussing (some, too few) examples women's work.
+In the Advertisement to the fourth edition, announces that he find himself "at liberty to acknowledge my very great obligations to Mr. Henry Hope of Amsterdam." To credit one's sources, to give another his public due, is a sign of liberty among scholars.
Comments