Tony Brewer wrote:  
-----  
I am sure Smith didn't see the Wealth of Nations as a blueprint for  
any particular country or region - the 'the obvious and simple system  
of natural liberty' is entirely general. His examples are drawn from  
Great Britain as a whole, from its component parts (England and  
Scotland), and other places (France, the American colonies, etc.). If  
he was addressing himself to any political body it was the British  
Parliament - separate English and Scottish bodies did not exist. His  
intellectual context was Scottish, of course, though not narrowly or  
exclusively so, but that is not the same as having a 'blueprint' for  
Scotland as opposed to anywhere else.  
-----  
  
  
Except of course that Smith grew up with and lived in the presence of   
the most sophisticated legal system yet developed, one which   
established property rights in, among other things, goodwill,   
trademark, intellectual property (both patents and copyrights).  Had   
long-established standards of due process, control of precedent, and   
judicial independence (Act of Settlement, 1701).  Book V is quite   
pointed about the importance of law and the enforcement of contract.    
So Wealth of Nations had much to say to all nations, but the context   
in which the "Invisible Hand" worked was one a very visible,   
thoroughly articulated, and quite sophisticated legal system that   
established the core elements for market transactions, namely   
property rights and contract.  
  
Fred Carstensen