MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978520757 · doi:10.1353/can.0.0005

Toryism, Classical Liberalism, and Capitalism: The Politics of Taxation and the Struggle for Canadian Confederation

2008· article· en· W1978520757 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrew Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyCapitalismVictoryBattlePoliticsLiberalismIndividualismState (computer science)Political economyState capitalismClassical liberalismLawLaissez-fairePolitical scienceSociologyEconomic historyEconomicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the four original Canadian provinces, the politics of taxation were a central issue in the struggle to form Confederation, as they were in Newfoundland, the tax-adverse colony that rejected it. For many participants in the Confederation debate, the key issue was the optimal size of the state as a proportion of total economic activity. Janet Ajzenstat, Peter J. Smith, and Ian McKay have argued that Confederation represented a victory for the ideology of liberal individualism that underpins capitalism. The position taken here is that these scholars are mistaken about the ideological nature of Confederation, and that Confederation, instead, was supported by many colonists who were sympathetic to a relatively interventionist, or statist, approach to capitalist development. The anti-confederate camp of the time, by contrast, included the strongest supporters of classical liberal values such as free trade and low taxes. The struggle over Confederation involved a battle between a staunchly individualist economic philosophy and a comparatively collectivist view of the state’s proper role in the economy. Consequently, it is far more accurate to describe 1867 as the birth of a Tory-interventionist economic order in Canada, rather than of a liberal one. Les politiques de taxation étaient au cœur de l’affrontement sur la Confédération dans les quatre provinces d’origine et à Terre-Neuve, la colonie anti-impôt qui a renoncé à la Confédération dans les années 1860. Pour de nombreux participants au débat sur la Confédération, l’enjeu principal était la taille optimale de l’État par rapport à l’activité économique totale. Janet Ajzenstat, Peter J. Smith et Ian McKay ont soutenu que la Confédération représenta une victoire pour l’idéologie de l’individualisme libéral qui soustend le capitalisme. Le présent article soutient que ces auteurs font fausse route quant à la nature idéologique de la Confédération, en montrant que celleci était appuyée par de nombreux colons sympathiques à une approche relativement interventioniste ou étatiste à l’égard du développement capitaliste. En revanche, le camp anti-Confédération comprenait les partisans les plus vigoureux des valeurs libérales classiques telles que le libre-échange et la faible taxation. Le débat sur la Confédération fut l’occasion d’un affrontement entre une philosophie économique résolument individualiste et une opinion relativement collectiviste du rôle que l’État doit jouer dans l’économie. Il est donc beaucoup plus exact de décrire 1867 comme la naissance d’un ordre économique interventionniste au Canada que comme celle d’un ordre libéral.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207