Isn't it the case that the one use of the invisible hand in Smith's 
Wealth of Nations refers to how individuals looking out for 
themselves are led, as if by an invisible hand, to engage in acts 
that aid the aggregate?

If so, then Pat is expanding the scope of 'invisible hand' (which 
might be OK, but it seems to run to risk of turning it into 
everything, or everything non-governmental.  [Indeed, maybe in the 
eyes of many, it is.])

Peter G. Stillman