It should be said that Adam Smith's words reflect the reality of human society. But "because he pursues his own interests, he often promotes social interests, and the effect is greater than the social interests he really wants to promote"? I don't think so.
For example, soldiers in the army, do they guard the border only for themselves? If you only do it for yourself, you can certainly improve the welfare of the public, but you are not a good soldier. Excellent soldiers guard the borders of the whole country. Because the whole country contains himself, he guards the frontier for himself, and because the whole country also contains others, he guards the frontier for others, not just for himself. It should be said that only such a good soldier can better increase the welfare of the public.
The question is: why do people only do it for personal interests and not for public welfare?
I think this is caused by the existence of family and the division of property. Because people are separated from each other in family and property, people care more about personal interests than the overall interests. For example, I left the country in property, and I lived on my own property. Of course, I think more about my own interests than the interests of the country.
Therefore, in order to make all soldiers become good soldiers, we must make people become a family and make property no longer separate. So people will become a whole. In this way, people will better promote the public welfare.
/view/850d 057 f 168884868762d 6 1e . html