Adam Smith is history’s most famous economist, yet most people know precious little about what he wrote. But 2026 provides an excellent opportunity to overcome some of that oversight. That is because the semiquincentennial of America’s birth this summer coincides with that of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” published just under four months before the Declaration of Independence, which shared its deep commitment to liberty.

One part of Smith’s insights into the blessings of liberty can be seen in his articulation of how the “invisible hand” of market interactions can coordinate a society based upon liberty — i.e., private property rights and voluntary exchange — more effectively than can the coercive power of the state. As he put it, “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” But he also offers a complementary insight into what could be called the “visible foot” of government interventions into markets, claiming to benefit society. In his words, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation.”

The coincidence in time between “Wealth of Nations” and the Declaration of Independence is far from the only reason to reconsider Smith’s insights, because on America’s 250th anniversary, our government is exponentially larger and more arbitrarily intrusive than when he wrote — i.e., it has given a much larger role to its visible foot and a much smaller role to society’s invisible hand — giving up much of what greater liberty could provide for Americans.

Consider what Smith said of the clumsy visible foot of government.

[Governments are] … without exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.

The agents of the [government] regard the wealth of their master as inexhaustible; are careless at what price they buy; are careless at what price they sell; are careless at what expense they transport …

Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they sometimes are by public prodigality and misconduct … Those unproductive hands … may consume so great a share of their whole revenue … that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment.

There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people.

After all the proper subjects of taxation have been exhausted, if the exigencies of the state still continue to require new taxes, they must be imposed upon improper ones.

What has been the effect of government’s visible foot on the achievements the far more adept invisible hand could enable?

The profusion of government must, undoubtedly, have retarded the natural progress.

The uniform, constant and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition … is frequently powerful enough to maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in spite both of the extravagance of government, and of the greatest errors of administration … it frequently restores health and vigor to the constitution, in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of the doctor … it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.

In the midst of all the exactions of government…capital has been silently and gradually accumulated by the private frugality and good conduct of individuals, by their universal, continual, and uninterrupted effort to better their own condition. It is this effort, protected by law and allowed by liberty to exert itself in the manner that is most advantageous, which has maintained the progress.

The frugality and good conduct of individuals seem to have been able … to repair all the breaches which the waste and extravagance of government had made in the general capital of the society. Let us not, however, upon this account rashly conclude that she is capable of supporting any burden, nor even be too confident that she could support, without great distress, a burden a little greater than what has already been laid upon her.

That comparison of the invisible hand to the visible foot points to an extremely limited defensible role for government, in order to defend Americans’ “unalienable rights.”

No human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient [for] the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employment most suitable to the interest of the society.

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would … assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

To judge whether [a workman] is fit to be employed, may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver … is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive.

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.

Adam Smith long ago recognized that a system of natural liberty needed at most a very tightly constrained government. He was not far from H.L. Mencken’s view that “The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone — one which barely escapes being no government at all.” So what would the invisible hand be able to produce given such a limited government?

All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man.

Unfortunately, Adam Smith’s “system of natural liberty” is almost unimaginably far from the many layers of American government that now impose trillions of dollars of taxes and almost uncountable costly regulations each year. To restore his vision, shared with our founders — of providing the broadest possible canvas for human freedom — far less government is necessary. We need to rein in its overreaching, so that we can use the highly capable invisible hand of voluntary market arrangements more, and the far clumsier visible foot of government less.

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.