You’ve probably heard it thrown around in political debates or boring economics textbooks. Laissez-faire. It sounds fancy, sophisticated, and deeply French. Most people naturally assume the guy on the $20 bill or maybe Adam Smith just sat down one day and invented the idea of "leaving the market alone." But that's not actually how it went down.
Honestly, the real story of who introduced the concept of laissez faire is way more interesting than a bunch of dusty charts. It started with a group of frustrated French thinkers who were sick of the King’s thumb being on every single loaf of bread and bolt of silk in the country. It wasn't a single "aha!" moment. It was a protest.
The Legend of M. Le Gendre
The phrase itself—laissez-nous faire—basically means "let us do it" or "leave us be." It wasn't some academic theory at first. It was a plea for mercy.
Legend has it that around 1681, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the powerful Finance Minister under Louis XIV, asked a group of businessmen what the government could do to help them. Colbert was the king of "mercantilism," a system where the state micromanaged everything to hoard gold. He expected them to ask for subsidies or trade protections. Instead, a merchant named Thomas Le Gendre supposedly looked him in the eye and said, "Laissez-nous faire."
He was basically telling the government to get out of the way.
It was a radical thing to say to a guy who worked for the "Sun King." But Le Gendre wasn't a philosopher; he was just a guy trying to run a business without being strangled by red tape. While he gets credit for the "catchphrase," he didn't build the intellectual framework. That job fell to a group of people called the Physiocrats.
The Physiocrats: The First Real Economists
If you really want to know who introduced the concept of laissez faire as a serious economic doctrine, you have to look at Vincent de Gournay and François Quesnay.
📖 Related: Private Credit News Today: Why the Golden Age is Getting a Reality Check
Gournay was a merchant and a government official. He’s the one who took Le Gendre’s snappy comeback and turned it into the full-blown slogan: Laissez faire et laissez passer ("let it be and let it pass"). He wasn't just talking about local shops; he was talking about global trade. He believed that if you let goods flow freely across borders, everyone would get richer. It sounds obvious now, but in the 1700s, this was borderline treasonous.
Then there was Quesnay.
Quesnay was actually a physician to the King's mistress, Madame de Pompadour. Because he was a doctor, he looked at the economy like a human body. He thought wealth flowed through a country like blood through veins. If the government "clotted" the flow with taxes and regulations, the body politic would get sick and die. Quesnay and his circle, the Physiocrats, were the first to argue that there was a "natural order" to the economy. They believed the earth—agriculture—was the only true source of wealth.
They were wrong about the agriculture part, but they were right about the flow. They argued that the government didn't need to "manage" the economy any more than a doctor needs to tell a heart how to beat. It just happens.
Adam Smith: The Great Popularizer
So, if the French started it, why does everyone think it was Adam Smith?
Well, Smith was a bit of a sponge. He traveled to France in the 1760s and hung out with Quesnay and the Physiocrats. He loved their vibes but hated their obsession with farming. When he went back to Scotland and wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, he took the French idea of "letting it be" and gave it a much better PR campaign.
👉 See also: Syrian Dinar to Dollar: Why Everyone Gets the Name (and the Rate) Wrong
Smith didn't actually use the term "laissez-faire" in his book. Not once.
He used the term "invisible hand." It’s basically the same thing but sounds more poetic. He argued that when individuals pursue their own profit, they accidentally end up helping society more than if they had intended to. It’s the ultimate "work smarter, not harder" philosophy for an entire nation. Because Smith wrote in English and his timing coincided with the Industrial Revolution, he became the face of the movement. But he was standing on the shoulders of those grumpy Frenchmen who were tired of Colbert's rules.
The Concept in Practice (And Where It Hits a Wall)
Laissez-faire sounds great on paper. Who doesn't want the government to leave them alone? But history shows it’s rarely implemented in its "pure" form.
During the 19th century, Great Britain became the poster child for these ideas. They repealed the Corn Laws (which were taxes on imported grain) and moved toward free trade. It led to massive growth, but it also led to some pretty dark places. Without any regulation, you ended up with 10-year-olds working in coal mines and "The Great Stink" in London because there were no environmental rules.
This is the nuance people often miss. Even Adam Smith wasn't a "total" laissez-faire guy. He believed the government had to handle things the market couldn't—like building roads, providing a legal system, and defending the country.
Why This Matters in 2026
You might think this is just old history, but the debate over who introduced the concept of laissez faire and why they did it is still raging in the halls of power today.
✨ Don't miss: New Zealand currency to AUD: Why the exchange rate is shifting in 2026
Look at the tech industry. For the last twenty years, Silicon Valley has basically operated under a "laissez-faire" model. The government didn't really understand how the internet worked, so they just let it be. Now, we’re seeing a massive shift. Whether it's AI regulation, antitrust suits against Google, or data privacy laws, the era of "letting it be" in tech is crashing.
We are essentially living through a modern-day version of the 1700s French debate. Do we trust the "natural flow" of the market, or do we need a modern-day Colbert to step in and set some rules?
Misconceptions to Clear Up
- Myth: Laissez-faire means no government at all.
- Reality: It means no government interference in trade. You still need courts to enforce contracts and police to stop people from stealing your warehouse.
- Myth: It’s a Republican or Right-wing invention.
- Reality: It was originally a radical, almost "left-wing" idea used to challenge the absolute power of monarchs and the wealthy elite who benefited from government-granted monopolies.
Actionable Takeaways for the Modern Reader
If you're an entrepreneur or just someone trying to understand the world, here’s how to apply the "laissez-faire" mindset without being a zealot:
- Identify "Colbertism" in your life. Where are you over-regulating yourself? Sometimes we create so many "rules" and "systems" for our productivity that we stop actually doing the work. Try a day of "laissez-faire productivity" where you just do what feels most impactful without checking a list.
- Understand the "Invisible Hand" in your career. If you focus on becoming incredibly valuable at one specific thing, the market (employers/clients) will naturally seek you out. You don't always have to "force" a career path; sometimes you just need to be excellent and let the demand flow to you.
- Recognize the limits. Just as the 19th century needed child labor laws, your personal "market" needs boundaries. You can't work 24/7. Laissez-faire doesn't mean "no boundaries," it means "targeted freedom."
The next time someone mentions laissez-faire, you can skip the "it's an economic theory" line and tell them about the French doctor who compared the economy to blood, or the merchant who told the King’s right-hand man to buzz off. It was a movement born of frustration, refined by philosophy, and popularized by a Scotsman who knew a good idea when he saw one.
To dig deeper into how these historical shifts affect your investments today, you should start by analyzing the current regulatory trends in the "Magnificent Seven" tech stocks. Notice where the government is stepping in—that’s where the laissez-faire era is officially ending. Compare the growth rates of heavily regulated sectors (like utilities) versus less regulated ones (like early-stage biotech) to see the "Physocrat effect" in real-time.