There is either liberty or there isn't. Such a simple concept that so many find hard to understand. Oh well.
Smith's views are hotly debated, since he wrote two major works and they appear to be somewhat in contradiction. And yes, he appears to lean more towards the "libertarian" perspective (which is why he's perceived to be the inspiration for all the aficionados of "free markets"), but even there he never goes "full retard", so to speak. For instance, how about this: "It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security". Again, you can agree or disagree with Adam Smith's worldview, but he was well ahead of his time in formulating a coherent and self-consistent view of how the economic machine should function. One of the great geniuses that Scotland has given the world, IMHO.
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." -Adam Smith
It's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Not "Life, Keynsianism and the pursuit of Happiness"
The original threesome from Locke was "Life, Liberty, Property." Look up why the U.S. Founding Fathers changed that to Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness" and you'll understand a good deal more.
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom." - John Locke
I care more about the change to: "Life, Keynsianism and the pursuit of Happiness". That is current day America.