Is “freedom of trade”, whether at home or among nations, an attainable ideal? Adam Smith explains in just a few words why, alas, it is not! For reference, his explanation appears in the antepenultimate paragraph of Book IV, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (Para. 43), and despite its pessimistic conclusion, this particular passage is so on point, so poetic, and so astute that it not only speaks for itself; it speaks to us today:

“To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the public, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it…. The Member of Parliament who supports every proposal for [promoting these private interests] is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists.” (Wealth of Nations, IV.ii.43, emphasis added)

For my part, I won’t mince words or waste any more of our time. Simply put, what Smith is really saying here is that democracy and free trade are mutually incompatible. Given this conundrum, what is to be done? I will explore Smith’s own answer to this question and conclude my series on “The Immortal Adam Smith” in my next post.