Richman on Brooks on Hume

So the case is that Hume isn’t supportive of a role for government that uses the strength of the market to solve problems because… he supports property rights and thinks that freedom maximizes social welfare?Well if that’s the standard I guess I’m not supportive of a role for government that uses the strength of the market to solve problems either. Look – I think it’s fair to say that Hume is as compatible with this sort of libertarianism, just like it’s fair to say that it is compatible with other expressions of liberalism.Take Hume’s statement here: “It is his [a legislator's] best policy to comply with the common bent of mankind, and give it all the improvements of which it is susceptible.” or”It is a violent method, and in most cases impracticable, to oblige the labourer to toil, in order to raise from the land more than what subsists himself and family. Furnish him with manufactures and commodities, and he will do it of himself. Afterwards you will find it easy to seize some part of his superfluous labour, and employ it in the public service, without giving him his wonted return.”or “Every person, if possible, ought to enjoy the fruits of his labour, ina full possession of all the necessaries, and many of theconveniencies of life. No one can doubt, but such an equality ismost suitable to human nature, and diminishes much less from thehappiness of the rich than it adds to that of the poor. It alsoaugments the power of the state, and makes any extraordinarytaxes or impositions be paid with more chearfulness. Where theriches are engrossed by a few, these must contribute very largelyto the supplying of the public necessities.”Hume does support property and liberty. He also understands the value of “supply public necessities”, “employment in the public service”, and the legislator giving mankind “all the improvements of which it is susceptible.” His point – and his dispute with Platonists and mercantilists – was provision for these public goods needs to be achieved with an understanding that we can’t design the market. We can’t plan spontaneous order, and to a large extent we shouldn’t feel like we have to – most social good is supplied by the market with no necessity of public provision at all. But when we do have to, we need to keep in mind how doing “violence” (he uses the word violence to describe this a lot) to liberty can be counterproductive.

I think Brooks captures Hume perfectly – it’s very interesting to see people reinvent him as a modern libertarian. As I’ve said, I think it’s appropriate to recognize that Hume is compatible with modern libertarianism in many ways. But I don’t agree with this effort to remake him in the libertarian image.