The Three Philosophies Of Adam Ferguson, David Hume And Adam Smith

The three philosophers that will be examined are Adam Ferguson, David Hume, and Adam Smith. By assessing their thoughts on the subject of wealth, conclusions can be developed for the questions presented. Each thinker has an answer to these questions, yet there may be some overlap within the thoughts of these men since they were peers writing during the same period. The first philosopher to be discussed is Adam Ferguson along with his work An Essay on the History of Civil Liberty. Ferguson provides his understanding of wealth and its effects in the section of his work titled “Of Population and Wealth.” He does not explicitly define wealth such as in the form of a dictionary entry, rather must be deduced. Ferguson’s central claim in this section is that there is a connection between a growing population and the growing wealth and prosperity of a nation.

When discussing the difference between groups of people and their agricultural and production habits, he writes, “if a people, while they retain their frugality, increase their industry, and improve their arts, their numbers must grow in proportion. Hence it is, that the cultivated fields of Europe are more peopled than the wilds of America, or the plains of Tartary” (Ferguson 232, Nabu Press 2010). Ferguson continues by discussing the factors that contribute to the growth of wealth, writing, “while arts improve, and riches increase; while the possessions of individuals, or their prospects of gain, come up to their opinion of what is required to settle a family, they enter on its cares with alacrity” (232-233). Not only is Ferguson making the claim that wealth and population are intrinsically tied to one another, as stated previously, he provides rough answers to the questions that...

... middle of paper ...

... and can only be dictated by the “invisible hand” of the market. Regarding monopolies, an important component of Smith’s interpretation of the free market is a variety of competition. When a part of the market becomes monopolized, it prevents the market from achieving its full earnings potential. Smith’s critique of monopolies is in the section of his work where he also critiques mercantilism. When discussing the mercantile enterprises European nations had with their colonies in the Americas, Smith shows why monopolies are not beneficial since “it is thus that the single advantage which the monopoly procures to a single order of men, is in many different ways hurtful to the general interest of the country” (311). What Smith is claiming is that in order to create wealth, a nation’s economic activities much be allowed to operate freely and with all markets possible.