Samuel Fleischacker

And then I should add his big concern as regards libertarian governance is that government shouldn't pick winners and losers in the economy.

They shouldn't favor one company versus another, and they shouldn't favor one sector versus another, manufacturing versus agriculture or vice versa.

He did not think government should refrain from helping the poor.

So the whole issue about welfare policy, it wasn't really on the table at the time, but to the extent that it was, he supported the English poor law and he supported public education for poor people.

So he certainly wasn't in any way clearly on the side of libertarians.

I, as a kind of social Democrat, welfare liberal, I claim Smith as an ancestor.

And I think both libertarians and welfare liberals can pull on different pieces of him for that.

It's just not his issue.

Right.

So this is fiercely debated to this day in Smith's scholarship.

There are some people who think he means the hand of God, governing the markets so everything will work out right.

I think that's clearly not true, especially in The Wealth of Nations, which never mentions God.

Let me pause you.

So it appears in the context of his argument that you don't need to force merchants to favor their own country in their trading because they will do that anyway, because they want to keep an eye on their goods.

And he says they are led as if by an invisible hand to do what is best for their society.

Now, that's been read in many different ways.

My own version of it is that Smith thinks the opportunities for any individual to make money in an economy are made possible by what other people around them need.

So it makes sense that anything that you do to further your own interests will also help the society as a whole.

This is actually, I think, part of his view that societies shape individuals so that even when you think you're doing something for your own interests,

You might be and you might not be, but you're always helping your society.