One of the innovations most advocated by Adam Smith was the non-interference of the state in trade and industrial expansion. In Smith's view, the always backward and antiquated rules of the governmental states only serve to delay the advance of technological innovations and bureaucratize and demotivate the capital entrepreneur.

In the fourth book, entitled "Political Economy Systems", Smith attacks the bureaucratic system, the numerous taxes, legal insecurities and the lack of motivation of those who have capital to invest in industry - an activity that was gaining strength over agriculture, for example.

Indeed, he attacked most forms of government interference in the economic process, including tariffs, arguing that this creates inefficiency and high prices in the long run.

This theory is believed to have influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century.

Smith defended a government that operated in sectors other than the economy, that the government should regulate health and education, for the well-being of the population: he believed that the well-being of the people was achieved through capital and that capital, well used for the well-being of the people would generate an upward spiral that improves the productivity of the industry.

He advocated public education for poor adults, a judiciary and a standing army - institutional systems not directly profitable for private industries.

The book itself is a critique of mercantilism and a synthesis of emerging economic thinking at the time.

As in the mid-17th century, the idea of ​​mercantilist and exploitation colonies was already exhausted, there was criticism about the idea that protectionist tariffs serve the economic interests of a nation and that large reserves of gold bars or other metals are necessary for a country's economic success.

Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage is based on these pillars.

It is undeniable that England used these fundamentals to pressure its mercantilist partners: Portugal and Spain - which accumulated large reserves of precious metals, exploited in the Americas, to generate trade and make this wealth circulate.

Napoleon Bonaparte, in the 19th century, also put pressure on the mercantilist nations, but with another objective: to plunder to maintain their armies.

It is undeniable that the state cannot be efficient in managing anything. But it is very efficient in regulating and equitable guarantees over its territory.

In short, this is what Adam Smith stood for: the state maintaining the population's well-being, such as education and health, to ensure the industry's efficiency and generate more capital that, through simple taxes, could be reverted to the population itself.

But, despite defending state control over these items, he defended that private capital should do so, with the state being only the supervisor of the application of this well-being.

In cryptocurrencies the defense must be the same.

But, in fact, what has been happening is the state wanting to create its own national cryptocurrency, subverting the order of just regulating and inspecting.

In the case of cryptocurrencies, state interference translates into a ban on trade in cryptocurrencies, bureaucratic difficulties or charges of absurd fees under the rule of law.

Other states expel cryptomines, hijack bitcoins they deem illegal, and destroy mines just for energy reasons.

The weight of the state's fighting hand, however, denotes how dangerous this cryptosystem is getting.

Do cryptocurrencies really pose a threat to the traditional financial system?

Or is it just a modern way of redistributing the normal citizen's chances of having more direct access to capital?

Who is interested in keeping the shackles of the traditional financial system?

Regulation is vital! Supervision too!

The early article: https://www.publish0x.com/rationality-emotionality-and-financial-markets/series-from-nothing-to-everything-cryptocurrencies-in-smiths-xoomdnd

Machiaveli and politicians: https://www.publish0x.com/rationality-emotionality-and-financial-markets/a-misinterpretation-the-ends-do-not-justify-the-means-xyyvxrv