000 03655nam a22006135i 4500
001 305159
003 IT-RoAPU
005 20250106150301.0
006 m|||||o||d||||||||
007 cr || ||||||||
008 240826t19981998pau fo d z eng d
020 _a9780585282442
_qPDF
024 7 _a10.1515/9780585282442
_2doi
035 _a(DE-B1597)9780585282442
035 _a(DE-B1597)670345
040 _aDE-B1597
_beng
_cDE-B1597
_erda
050 4 _aJC176.S63
_bG35 1998eb
072 7 _aPOL010000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a320/.01/1
_221
084 _aonline - DeGruyter
100 1 _aGallagher, Susan E.
_eautore
245 1 4 _aThe Rule of the Rich? :
_bAdam Smith’s Argument Against Political Power /
_cSusan E. Gallagher.
264 1 _aUniversity Park, PA :
_bPenn State University Press,
_c[1998]
264 4 _c1998
300 _a1 online resource (152 p.)
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
505 0 0 _tFrontmatter --
_tCONTENTS --
_tAcknowledgments --
_tIntroduction --
_tI Commerce and the Question, Who Should Rule? --
_tII Thanks, But No Thanks: Mandeville's Defense of Court Whig Hypocrisy --
_tIII Bolingbroke's Search for a Patriot King --
_tIV Hume' s Critique of the Whig Supremacy --
_tV Adam Smith and the End of Aristocrasy --
_tPostscript --
_tNotes --
_tBibliography --
_tIndex
506 0 _arestricted access
_uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
_fonline access with authorization
_2star
520 _aUsually viewed as the premier apologist for laissez-faire capitalism, Smith is seen in this new interpretation within the context of an earlier tradition that condemned the British aristocracy for relinquishing its moral obligation to promote the public good in favor of an unceasing pursuit of private gain.Through separate chapters on Mandeville, Bolingbroke, and Hume, Gallagher shows that Smith echoed civic humanist sermons against the avaricious inclinations of the nobles who profited most from commercial expansion. Unlike earlier critics, however, Smith concluded that the most prudent response to aristocratic corruption was not to hold ministers, kings, and social notables to higher standards but to limit their access to political power. The Rule of the Rich? accordingly shows that the case for limited government made in The Wealth of Nations was not a defense of individual liberty so much as a concession to the apparent incompetence of the British upper class.
538 _aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546 _aIn English.
588 0 _aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 26. Aug 2024)
650 7 _aPOLITICAL SCIENCE / History & Theory.
_2bisacsh
653 _a-0 0-271-02496.
653 _a-8 Political Theory Political Philosophy Philosophy History.
653 _a0-271-01774.
653 _aAdam Smith's.
653 _aArgument.
653 _aSusan E. Gallagher.
653 _aagainst Political Power.
653 _aapologist laissez-faire capitalism British.
653 _aaristocracy moral obligation public good private gain Mandeville Bolingbroke Hume.
653 _acivic humanist sermons limited government The Wealth of Nations.
653 _aincompetence British.
653 _aupper class.
850 _aIT-RoAPU
856 4 0 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9780585282442?locatt=mode:legacy
856 4 0 _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780585282442
856 4 2 _3Cover
_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9780585282442/original
942 _cEB
999 _c305159
_d305159