The Marquis d'Argenson is a forgotten founder of the doctrine of laissez-faire.

It was rediscovered by August Oncken, author of a book on the laissez-faire, laissez-passer doctrine, concluded that d'Argenson played a major role in the birth of this idea.

René-Louis Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson, was born in 1694. He began his political career as a parliamentary advisor, then served on the Council of State.

Thirty years before Adam Smith, d'Argenson was already defending the benefits of the division of labor and specialization.

He strongly criticized regulations that, as he saw it, tried to change the natural preferences of different regions. For instance, he was baffled that the government wanted to produce fabrics and velvets in Tours, a poor city at the time, to match the quality of those made in prosperous Genoa, which was famed for its luxury goods. He concluded:

He also recognized another of Smith's central principles: the idea that spontaneous order arises from the pursuit of self-interest. The Marquis d'Argenson believed that immediate personal interest was what drove human energy. He wrote that poor craftsmanship and fraud would discredit a manufacturer, while diligence and good intentions would lead to prosperity. The best judge of utility, he argued, was the individual, the public at large, who buy goods and care about making a good deal. "Everyone senses their own interest," he said, "everyone takes the measures that are profitable to him, and it is in this general agreement that we discover the truth."

Even before Adam Smith, he understood that self-interest leads to general interest through the construction of a spontaneous natural order.

He compared society to a hive of bees where every insect follows its instinct, "From their actions", he said precisely, "resulted a great accumulation for the needs of the small society; but this was not brought about by orders, or by generals, who obliged each individual to follow the views of their leader". This is perhaps the closest expression in French economic thought to Adam Smith's famous concept of the "invisible hand".

The Marquis d'Argenson was always outraged by the ideas of the ministers of his time. The only question they asked was, "Should we regulate this way or that? Should we direct the economy toward this or that?". To which d'Argenson replied: "Shouldn't we first ask whether it's appropriate to direct any of it at all, or whether things should be left to operate on their own?"

To tell the truth, he was astonished that people found it so hard to understand, or rather, to see, the harmful effects of excessive regulation of all kinds on the economy. In his view, it was enough to simply open one's eyes. "So many things are working reasonably well today", he wrote bitterly, "simply because they've managed to escape the reach of the law". Sometimes, he despaired at how little his ideas were understood.

The ideal of economic policy that he defended was therefore contrary to the trends of his time. His ideal defined an essentially negative role for the State. "All commerce needs is the removal of obstacles. It asks only for good judges, punishment of monopolies, equal protection for all citizens, stable currencies, and roads and canals". This was the definition for a minimal State, which would become one of the foundations of the French tradition in political economy.

This vision of the role of the State in economic activity was naturally illustrated by the study of two major issues that stirred the economists and social thinkers of his time: the regulation of industry and the wheat trade.

The regulations on industry, first of all, aroused all his resentment, because they were privileges for some at the expense of others. "The real cause of the decline of our factories", he wrote, "is the excessive protection given to them". And it was with a no less lively credo that he expressed his criticism of the dirigiste zeal of the statesmen of his time:

On the question of trade in subsistence, d'Argenson had no other answer than freedom. According to him, the wheat shortages came from the monopoly and the excessive precautions taken by the government. All we had to do was let it be, and there would never be a wheat shortage in a country where the ports were open. Foreigners, attracted like all other men by the lure of gain, would provide us with what we need and take away our surplus. "Let it be", he said, "and all will be well".