Dennis Rasmussen

Sympathy in the theory of moral sentiments doesn't entail or require any kind of altruism or other directedness.

It's perfectly compatible with people being self-interested.

And likewise, the emphasis on self-interest in The Wealth of Nations wasn't advocating that people be selfish, wasn't advocating that greed is good, to use the line from the movie, but rather trying to describe how people interact and also communicate.

The argument is a reliance on self-interest can be liberating in the sense that if you rely on people's self-interest, you don't have to rely on their benevolence.

You don't have to act like a dog at a table begging for scraps, right?

You can count on people acting out of their self-interest.

There's a way in which this produces a sense of personal independence.

So there's a raging debate in Smith scholarship among people who are sometimes called left Smithians and right Smithians about where he would fit on today's political spectrum.

I think once a thinker has been claimed by one side reasonably successfully in this case, it's kind of hard for the other side to reclaim them.

They often just turn to a different thinker and find that to be an easier path to take.

It would absolutely be nice, yes.

The different elements of Smith's thought that would push him in different directions, right?

He shows this very deep and palpable concern for the lot of the poor.

The wages, the conditions of the working poor are really his central measuring stick for the wealth of nations, for how wealthy an economy is.

It's not, you know, the holdings of the affluent few, but the ease of everyday people to attain the necessities of life.

On the other hand, you know, there are elements of his thought that push him toward the right of today's political spectrum.

He really does distrust government.

He distrusts politicians, both their abilities and often even their intentions.

And so there are elements of his thought that push him in both directions.

It's hard to know, to be honest, where he would stand on today's political spectrum with regard to a lot of these questions because he saw the two as going hand in hand.