Dissident Voices 271It was primarily British po liti cal economists who took up the physiocratic
ideas and applied them more widely. Th e leading fi gures were both Scots:
David Hume and Adam Smith (who were close personal friends). Th ey were
both of the natural- law persuasion, in the sense that they sought to articu-
late the general principles along which the social world operated, in the way
that Newton had done for the celestial realm. Smith’s famous treatise on Th e
Wealth of Nation s (1776) became the fundamental text of economic liberal-
ism. Th is was followed up in the early nineteenth century by the writing of
David Ricardo, who expounded the principle of comparative advantage,
which was the conceptual heart of the liberal theory of free trade.
Crucial to the eff ective operation of a liberal economic system is the liberty
of individuals to respond to the demands of free markets. A liberal economic
regime is therefore a radically decentralized system of production, relying on
the discipline of markets rather than on the imperious commands of pomp-
ous bureaucrats or feudal magnates. Some positive actions by governments
are admittedly necessary, such as rigorous enforcement of private contracts
and the provision of public security. Th e major point, though, is that the role
of government is to protect and serve, not to command or manipulate. Gov-
ernment’s most urgent task is simply to refrain from interfering with and
disrupting the system. Th is combined focus on individual freedom and gov-
ernmental self- restraint was a principal hallmark of liberalism.
One more general point about liberalism bears on its relevance to inter-
national law: its basically pacifi stic character. It is true that it was based on
competition between rival producers. In that sense, competitiveness was in
its very marrow. But this competitiveness was peaceful, not violent, and it
was between private parties, not states. Peaceful economic competition was
seen not only as far preferable to the military variety. It was also regarded as
a means of reducing the very possibility of confl ict because it would ensure
that the resources of the world were shared out, more or less equitably, with-
out bloodshed or conquest. Th e point was pithily summed up by the French
economic economist and publicist Frédéric Bastiat: “When goods do not cross
frontiers,” he warned, “armies will.”
Some liberals went so far as to maintain that the very pro cess of interna-
tional relations between governments was an intrinsically corrupting pro-
cess, producing national rivalries and jealousies at best, and outright war at
worst. It was in this spirit that President George Washington of the United