The Wealth of Nations, introduced the idea of the invisible hand. It’s a metaphor for how individuals pursuing their own interests—like buying, selling, or working—unintentionally benefit society by allocating resources efficiently through supply and demand. In a free market, which Smith saw as trade with minimal government interference, prices and production naturally adjust based on people’s needs and choices. He believed this system promotes freedom because it lets individuals make their own economic decisions, fostering innovation and prosperity.

Capitalism builds on this, emphasizing private property and voluntary exchange, though Smith warned that monopolies or excessive government meddling could distort the invisible hand’s benefits. He wasn’t saying it’s perfect, just that it often works better than top-down control.

Folks like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Hoppe would totally back the idea that capitalism, at its core, is about free markets and freedom.

Ludwig von Mises argued that capitalism thrives on voluntary exchange, where people freely trade without coercion, and that’s what drives prosperity. Friedrich Hayek built on this, saying free markets work because they harness decentralized knowledge—prices reflect what people want without some big shot controlling it.

Murray Rothbard took it further, pushing anarcho-capitalism, where even state monopolies like police or courts should be replaced by private, competing firms.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe echoed Rothbard, saying any group controlling markets—like through government-backed monopolies—violates the non-aggression principle and isn’t true capitalism.

They’d all say monopolies get busted up naturally in a free market because competition undercuts them, but if any group, government or not, rigs the game, it’s no longer capitalism—it’s cronyism or worse.

Freedom, to them, is the ability to act and trade without someone holding a gun to your head, and capitalism’s the only system that fully respects that.