I guess you can call me a libertarian. I’m a market anarchist or an AnCap or an anarchist or a marketist or a voluntaryist or whatever. To make it easy on you, I don’t believe in the justification of government force. 

Why did I post a link “promoting” Wealth of Nations? Because it’s a profound piece of writing, not just for economics, but for government, politics and society as a whole. Even if I completely disagreed with it, I’d still link people to it so that they can read it.

I have copies of Marx and Upton Sinclair in my personal library, not because I’m a communist or a socialist or even because I believe there is some merit to those theories, because I think they are complete bunk. But I’ve read them because it’s important to read them and understand them if I’m going to discredit them and promote my own theories. What point is there in limiting yourself to only reading and studying those works which align with your theories. Confirmation bias much? 

Yes, I’ve read Wealth of Nations (Ironically, it wasn’t a voluntary decision at the time) and, no, he does no condemn free markets. If that was your takeaway from The Wealth of Nations, I strongly encourage you to reread it (or actually read it for the first time). 

As for Adam Smith being a “socialist”, I’m guessing you derived that idea from reading ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’? Or did you come to that conclusion because Smith talked about how earners should pay back to society (which I think many people misunderstand this to mean pay more taxes). 

And if you’re as confused and as misguided as this message makes you out to be and as lazy as I suspect you are, you can bypass the 1,000 pages of reading and have P.J. O’Rourke read the book for you:

Part I: http://youtu.be/TWu_1qrwf3E

Part II: http://youtu.be/e7fG6XdDFDU

Thanks for playing,
Sha