This thesis deals with comparisons made between classical liberal economic thought and Daoist philosophy,rooted in Adam Smith and the Daodejing respectively.In particular,this thesis focuses on the comparisons made by “market Taoists” of the late 20 th and early 21 st century.These purveyors of classical economics equated the concept of laissez-faire in freemarket（liberal）economics with wuwei in Daoist philosophy.I summarise critical responses made against their position,and develop the claim that certain incongruencies between classical liberal and Daoist thought have been overlooked by the “market Taoists.” Central to my development of this claim is my argument that the following elements are not compatible: Daoist “knowing what is enough”（zhizu）and the mechanism lauded in classical economics that self-interested human nature drives economic development.Subsequently,I outline some Daoist comparisons which can be better aligned with zhizu thought,namely Confucian thinking as drawn from the Analects and the thought of Ralph-Waldo Emerson,an American thinker who engaged with classical liberalists including Smith.In the final section of the thesis,I discuss the fruits of the comparison between classical liberal and Daoist thought.Despite the flaws inherent in the comparison made by the “market Taoists,” the debate informs a discussion around the influence of the ruler on a people’s desires: the classical liberal approach allows people’s self-interested desire to drive the economy,while the Daoist approach encourages mastery of desire in order to promote satisfaction and establish a harmonious society.