How much of a role should the state play in a nation’s economy? And how should society view those who seek to profit from selling goods and services? As Jacob Soll shows in his intellectual history, these two questions have puzzled philosophers and economists for more than two millennia. And very much in the news today as an attempt by the British government to reshape the economic role of the state has led to political and financial turmoil.

An ambivalent attitude towards moneymaking can be traced back to Cicero, the great Roman orator, who was an enthusiast for agricultural trade but deeply suspicious of the merchant classes. The same ambivalence can be found in the New Testament where Jesus tells a rich man to “sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor”. But in the parable of the talents, a master berates the servant who buries his savings, rather than investing them wisely. The early history of the Church is marked by tension between those who, like the Franciscans, believed in vows of poverty and the steady wealth accumulation of the Church establishment, which benefited from donations from nobles hoping to buy their salvation.

As Soll, a professor of philosophy, history and accounting at the University of Southern California, demonstrates, the concept of a “free market” has also been used in an ambiguous fashion. Ancient empires, from the Romans to the Mongols, recognised that greater trade led to increased taxes, which helped to finance their military machines. But the overriding aim was to service the state; there was nothing libertarian about this philosophy. The Medieval towns and professions of Europe were granted privileges by their rulers, but effectively the monarchs granted them monopolies in return for tax revenues.