“Philosophic economique” and the Foundations of Laissez-Faire
From the 1760s onwards, the Physiocrats and their friends were known as the “econo- mistes”, the “ecrivains economistes” or the “philosophes economistes”. The current of thought they represent came thus to be naturally called “philosophie economique”.
This phrase was in particular used by Condillac’s brother, Gabriel Bonnot de Mably (1709-1785), in his 1768 Doutesproposes auxphilosophes economistes sur l,ordre naturel et essentiel des societes politiques - a book criticising the political magnum opus of the physiocratic school, Pierre-Paul Le Mercier de la Riviere’s L’ordre naturel et essentieldes societes politiques (1767 [2001]). It was accepted by his adversaries: one of the foremost members of the school, Nicolas Baudeau (1730-1792), used it in the title of his 1771 theoretical synthesis, Premiere introduction a la philosophie economique, ou analyse des Etats polices. The appellation however fits all the authors of the laissez-faire approach, from Boisguilbert to Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832): they all proposed a new political philosophy centred on the working of markets in competitive conditions, developed around three main axes: a theory of knowledge based on sensationism, a theory of self-interested action in society, and a peculiar conception of the efficient action of the legislator (Faccarello and Steiner 2008a, 2012). The point is well perceived by Mably, who blamed Quesnay of having begun “his political studies with agriculture, the nature of tax and commerce, and consequently considered these quite secondary objects of administration to be the fundamental principles for society” (Bonnot de Mably 1768 [1795]: 144) - Rousseau’s opinion was not different.