The queen does not rule
The author is mischarachterizing how Adam Smith viewed the division of labour. While he viewed it as a gain in economic efficency, he also viewed it as regrettable, limiting, and damaging to people, especially when taken to an extreme.<p><pre><code>     &quot;The man whose whole life is spent in performing a 
     few simple operations, of which the effects are 
     perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, 
     has no occasion to exert his understanding or to 
     exercise his invention in finding out expedients 
     for removing difficulties which never occur. He 
     naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such 
     exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and 
     ignorant as it is possible for a human creature
     to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not 
     only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in 
     any rational conversation, but of conceiving any 
     generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and 
     consequently of forming any just judgement 
     concerning many even of the ordinary duties of 
     private life... But in every improved and civilized 
     society this is the state into which the labouring 
     poor, that is, the great body of the people, must 
     necessarily fall, unless government takes some 
     pains to prevent it.&quot;
</code></pre>
The moral side of Adam Smith&#x27;s arguements is often entirely ignored in analysis of his philosophy. He strongly condems many aspects of a free market&#x2F;capatialist economy. Why this is never focused on isnt very clear to me.