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