Today we start the last book of #AdamSmith's #WealthOfNations.

Allons-y!

#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

Book Five of #WealthOfNations is all about the duties of the sovereign and how to pay for them. In this first part of chapter 1, we’re talking about the cost of defense. (V.i.a) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The sovereign's duty to protect the country can only be done through military force, but how you get the money to pay for that military varies according to time, place, and circumstance. (V.i.a.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
In a hunter/gatherer society, everyone is always already a warrior, and since there isn’t really a sovereign or nation, no expense is required to maintain defense. Much the same is true of shepherding cultures. (V.i.a.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Armies of hunters are limited in size to a few hundred men (as they have to sustain themselves through the available game). Shepherds can muster larger forces because they bring their sustenance in the form of flocks. (V.i.a.3–5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
#AdamSmith thinks wars among Indigenous American populations are contemptible because they’re small, but large invading cultures like the Tartars are impressive & dreadful.
We SmithTweeters boldly support smaller & fewer wars. (V.i.a.5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Farmers are also prepared for soldiering as a result of their daily labor. If the fighting can happen after planting and before harvest, farmers can usually afford to join the fight. So a farming culture is also fairly inexpensive to defend. (V.i.a.7) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Once you move away from these forms of society, though, the increasing sophistication of manufactures and war make it impossible for professional soldiers to support themselves. (V.i.a.8) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Leave your fields for a bit? Crops keep growing.
Leave your loom? There's no loom-fairy to do your weaving. With no weaving, you don’t make money.
(We know there's no field-fairy, work with us.)
If you want soldiers, you have to pay them. (V.i.a.9) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Plus, wars are way longer now. Extended campaigns instead of stand-alone skirmishes mean there’s really no way for soldiers to maintain another trade.
The more developed a society, the fewer inhabitants are willing or able to go to war. (V.i.a.10–11) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
In the ancient world, learning to be a soldier was a standard part of becoming educated. But as the art of war becomes more sophisticated, it becomes a specialty. (V.i.a.12–15) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
(We, the SmithTweeters, never quite know what to make of Smith’s claim that war is “certainly the noblest of all arts.” Does he mean it? Is he being ironic? Is he questioning what it means for something to be “noble?”) (V.i.a.14) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
When soldiering becomes a specialty the government can either force people to learn how to be soldiers or treat soldiering as a profession.
The first gives you a militia, the second, a standing army. (V.i.a.16–19) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The invention of firearms means that the fitness and skill level of individual soldiers is no longer as important. Instead of skill, you need regularity, order, and obedience in your soldiers. (V.i.a.20-21) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Smith notes, with confidence that a militia is always going to be inferior to a well-disciplined and well-exercised standing army.
*American SmithTweeting contingent whistles Yankee Doodle in upstart colonial*
(V.i.a.23–25) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Oh, okay. The colonials get some props from Smith a little later. If the war with Britain drags out long enough they may become a match for the standing army. (V.i.a.27–28) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
That said, standing armies are just irresistibly superior unless militias are engaged in such long campaigns that they equalize. (V.i.a.27–28) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
And now...a brief history of standing armies.

There were a lot of them. (V.i.a.29–38) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
When one nation develops a standing army, other nations must follow suit for their own protection. (V.i.a.37) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Oh, hey, here’s that “savage nations” thread. Just in case that's something you might be thinking about right now as Smith carefully explains that only standing armies can protect against barbarian invasions... (V.i.a.39–40) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

https://t.co/40ylHzfS6v
...And equally carefully explains that you need a standing army in order to civilize barbarians and establish the law of the sovereign with “irresistible force.” (V.i.a.40) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Lots of people argue that standing armies are dangerous to liberty. That can be true. But if the king is the general, the nobility are the chief officers, and the commanders support the civil authority, a standing army isn’t a threat. (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
(Does anyone else think that’s a whole pile of conditions that need to be met before a standing army isn’t a concern? Especially given the references to Caesar and Cromwell? Maybe it’s just us…) (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
On the other hand, says Smith, a standing army can give a sovereign a sense of security that means he doesn’t have to crack down as hard on the people as he would otherwise.
So, weirdly, a standing army can→more liberty. (V.i.a.41) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The duty of maintaining national defense gets more expensive as society becomes wealthier and war becomes more complicated. Cannons cost more than javelins. (V.i.a.43) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
This means that, unlike in ancient times, it’s now easier for developed and wealthy nations to defend themselves. That’s good, Smith says, for preserving and extending civilization. (V.i.a.44) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
(We, the SmithTweeters, are not military historians. But we’re pretty sure that a lot of what Smith says here doesn’t hold up throughout the 20th century... Anyone want to help us out with that before we come back tomorrow to talk about justice?) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

More from @AdamSmithWorks

More from Culture

@bellingcat's attempt in their new book, published by
@BloomsburyBooks, to coverup the @OPCW #Douma controversy, promote US and UK gov. war narratives, and whitewash fraudulent conduct within the OPCW, is an exercise in deception through omission. @BloomsburyPub @Tim_Hayward_


1) 2000 words are devoted to the OPCW controversy regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack in #Douma, Syria in 2018 but critical material is omitted from the book. Reading it, one would never know the following:

2) That the controversy started when the original interim report, drafted and agreed by Douma inspection team members, was secretly modified by an unknown OPCW person who had manipulated the findings to suggest an attack had occurred. https://t.co/QtAAyH9WyX… @RobertF40396660


3) This act of attempted deception was only derailed because an inspector discovered the secret changes. The manipulations were reported by @ClarkeMicah
and can be readily observed in documents now available https://t.co/2BUNlD8ZUv….

4) @bellingcat's book also makes no mention of the @couragefoundation panel, attended by the @opcw's first Director General, Jose Bustani, at which an OPCW official detailed key procedural irregularities and scientific flaws with the Final Douma Report:
I woke up this morning to hundreds of notifications from this tweet, which is literally just a quote from a book I am giving away tonight.

The level of vitriol in the replies is a new experience for me on here. I love Twitter, but this is the dark side of it.

Thread...


First, this quote is from a book which examines castes and slavery throughout history. Obviously Wilkerson isn’t claiming slavery was invented by America.

She says, “Slavery IN THIS LAND...” wasn’t happenstance. American chattel slavery was purposefully crafted and carried out.

That’s not a “hot take” or a fringe opinion. It’s a fact with which any reputable historian or scholar agrees.

Second, this is a perfect example of how nefarious folks operate here on Twitter...

J*mes Linds*y, P*ter Bogh*ssian and others like them purposefully misrepresent something (or just outright ignore what it actually says as they do in this case) and then feed it to their large, angry following so they will attack.


The attacks are rarely about ideas or beliefs, because purposefully misrepresenting someone’s argument prevents that from happening. Instead, the attacks are directed at the person.

You May Also Like

शमशान में जब महर्षि दधीचि के मांसपिंड का दाह संस्कार हो रहा था तो उनकी पत्नी अपने पति का वियोग सहन नहीं कर पायी और पास में ही स्थित विशाल पीपल वृक्ष के कोटर में अपने तीन वर्ष के बालक को रख के स्वयं चिता पे बैठ कर सती हो गयी ।इस प्रकार ऋषी दधीचि और उनकी पत्नी की मुक्ति हो गयी।


परन्तु पीपल के कोटर में रखा बालक भूख प्यास से तड़पने लगा। जब कुछ नहीं मिला तो वो कोटर में पड़े पीपल के गोदों (फल) को खाकर बड़ा होने लगा। कालान्तर में पीपल के फलों और पत्तों को खाकर बालक का जीवन किसी प्रकार सुरक्षित रहा।

एक दिन देवर्षि नारद वहां से गुजर रहे थे ।नारद ने पीपल के कोटर में बालक को देख कर उसका परिचय मांगा -
नारद बोले - बालक तुम कौन हो?
बालक - यही तो मैं भी जानना चहता हूँ ।
नारद - तुम्हारे जनक कौन हैं?
बालक - यही तो मैं भी जानना चाहता हूँ ।

तब नारद ने आँखें बन्द कर ध्यान लगाया ।


तत्पश्चात आश्चर्यचकित हो कर बालक को बताया कि 'हे बालक! तुम महान दानी महर्षि दधीचि के पुत्र हो । तुम्हारे पिता की अस्थियों का वज्रास्त्र बनाकर ही देवताओं ने असुरों पर विजय पायी थी।तुम्हारे पिता की मृत्यु मात्र 31 वर्ष की वय में ही हो गयी थी'।

बालक - मेरे पिता की अकाल मृत्यु का क्या कारण था?
नारद - तुम्हारे पिता पर शनिदेव की महादशा थी।
बालक - मेरे उपर आयी विपत्ति का कारण क्या था?
नारद - शनिदेव की महादशा।
इतना बताकर देवर्षि नारद ने पीपल के पत्तों और गोदों को खाकर बड़े हुए उस बालक का नाम पिप्पलाद रखा और उसे दीक्षित किया।