China, I would be careful is looking to China for any type of economic idea. Why? I remember in the 1980s everyone looked to Japan and wanted to idealism their system of government and economic relations and the way they did business. I remember even starting to study Japanese. My professors at the University marveled at Japan’s model in business. However, as we see for the last 25 years they have economic trouble. So it is with China, some get rich and the rest get rich slower. I would still rather be American than Chinese economically. America life is easy peasy, China not so.
Free trade seems like a bad idea but the English abandon mercantilism and so did Europe via the EU and do did the USA and look how which we are, and yes we are extremely rich in the USA.
Think of it this way. What is New York and New Jersey decided to put tariffs up for trade, commerce and restrict movement of labor and capital between their two states. Lets say one states manufactured widgets and the other wanted to so they simply restricted imports across state lines, then the whole USA did this and then counties and towns did the say. Each village would growth their own food and make their own things. Granted we would have full employment (questionable) but for silly reasons, that is the economy would be back in the middle ages.
If you are against free trade consider this USA state model or township model of towns pursing mercantilism. It is a silly theory and would leave everyone worse off. Even if one town became an economic hamlet and was mercantilist, they would not grow rich.
China is getting rich as they are building mouse traps cheaper because of labor. The USA should not focus on that as they are in a different stage of economic development, we need to focus on building a higher level product in manufacturing or offer some higher level economic product with our intellect.
Just like agriculture became more specialised and efficient so manufacturing is. This is what people do not realise and the economy has grown away from a dependence on the primary sector. Economics is something that is not top down but more a mystery that each generation does not grasp, until their time is over. Our economy needs innovation and creativity and to move forward to compete not based on an industrial manufacturing model of China.
We are doing great research in genetics and physics and high level economic activity, that is why Americas are so rich. We do not want to go back making plastic toys do we? And if we did, be warned China is starting to get into high level high-tech things and we will be focus on manufacturing ideas from the 1950s model of economics.
Adam Smith in my mind was a genius that he could see that if you focus on protecting the individual and property rights then society as a whole will be better off in ways no one can see or imagine. This was the enlightenment.

Markets are most free when they are equal, transparent, and well policed — and those playing in them do not have power over them collectively. Individual trades and dealings are not subject to this stricture. Adams also talked incessantly about the need for government policies to enable markets, and the power of government policies to degrade the power of labour, combine the powers of “stock”, and how those powers set whole countries on a downward spiral if they prevent the allocation of a living wages to those who labour for that business. “But it would be otherwise in a country where the funds destined for the maintenance of labour were sensibly decaying…” and he his discussion of how the pay of the labour feeds back into the profits of enterprises and the wealth of businessmen ought to be a warning to the USA in this time of “reverse mercantilism” where we have one way “free markets” where our trade partners practice mercantilism and we practice a kind of reverse mercantilism reminescent of the policies pursued by China and Bengal that Smith refers to. They learned from wealth of nations. Businessmen should stick to business and be forced to share the stage with other citizens when it comes to public trust.

I am also a libertarian leaning. However, I do not see Adam Smith as social economic Darwinism at all, that is a loaded term.
Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and wrote the book in part as a help to humanity. He believed in the enlightenment and the ideal of that time. Basically all humans are equal and it is circumstance of being raised that is the creates the biggest differences in opportunity. I believe this also.
The way to give all a better chance is to allow people to express their own given talents and skills freely. When we are all doing our thing in life, society as a whole gets richer. Society as a whole benefits in ways that can not be seen or engeneered by government.
This is a central point of the enlightenment. When you give people the chance by maximizing their individual liberties society as in aggregate benefits.

Mr. Smith has (whether we like it or not) such influence in World economics nowadays that is necessary to read his work to understand what is going with the economy. (wehether we like it or not, once again)

I would like to post my questions and observations somewhere where we can put together the image we see from the other perspective, could it be here? not? my blog? a forum? Ideas?

Anyway, thanks for sharing, for your time putting it together and for keeping people -that might or might not believe in capitalism- informed from the actual source.
I hope we can engage in a healthy discussion about Mr. Smith theories.

Greetings from Venezuela.