[guerrilla]

I don't specifically remember that form Wealth of Nations, I know he argued against some cases, but he did argue for all kinds of other intervention for sure.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion."

[cherrycherry98]

Smith very much supported the existence of the state for several purposes. If I recall correctly they are things pretty non controversial like defense, infrastructure, property rights, regulations that enable markets to operate effectively (providing necessary transparency so that people can make informed choices, protections against monopolies and rent seeking behavior). He correctly identifies that while some regulations are necessary, some will seek to use them to protect their own position, ie regulatory capture.

Overall, his message is decidedly pro freedom and against top down economic planning and intervention. People are naturally self interested, and enabling them to voluntarily trade with others as they see fit enhances the life of each partner of the trade. Scale that up and society advances itself with an centralized arbiter to guide it.

As for taxes, the reason he felt that the rich should pay more is because they derive the most benefit from the existence of the state.

[guerrilla]

You don't think it's a bit weird to try to explain a book to someone who just said they read it? Your behavior here is quite strange.

[cherrycherry98]

Apologies if I came across in any way patronizing, my intent was to add some details for others in the context of Smith's views on the role of the state, which I felt were lacking in the wider thread in general. Your original comment sparked those thoughts for me, which is why I replied there. My comment was not intended for you personally so much as for the wider audience.

If my etiquette was at all inappropriate I apologize.