Neoliberals rejected the deistic self-regulating market as naive optimism.

Evidence

This conception of the market also had its theological lineage, as earlier neoliberals were well aware. Yet, rather than being structurally modelled on the miraculous interventions of a transcendent God, the idea of the market as a natural order had the same systematic structure as a world ordered by an absent God who governed exclusively through natural laws. Neoliberalism was founded on the rejection of this model of the market, which the German ordoliberal Alexander Rüstow disparaged as a reflection of theological faith in the ‘eternal wisdom of the natural law’. Wilhelm Röpke mocked the idea that the competitive market was a natural order ‘miraculously directed by the “invisible hand” mentioned by Adam Smith, which in reality is nothing but the “divine reason” of deistic philosophy’. The problem with such a belief, according to the neoliberals, was that it led to misplaced optimism about the self-regulating properties of the market, and neglect of the ‘non-economic prerequisites’ of a market economy, including its moral prerequisites. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 332

Categorization

• XREF: Reverses the common association between Adam Smith’s invisible hand and modern neoliberalism — ordoliberals like Rüstow and Röpke explicitly rejected that lineage. — connects to: Neoliberals rejected classical liberalism’s rationalism in favor of critical conventionalism. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 90; Neoliberal thinkers rejected natural-rights foundations, deriving morality from market evolution — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 28; Neoliberals rejected the pure state-versus-market binary as a false dichotomy — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 9 (+5 more)
• QUESTION: What exactly are the ‘moral prerequisites’ of a market economy that ordoliberals insisted on? This seems central to the larger debate on market ethics.
• DEFINE: Clarifies the distinction between the deistic worldview (absent God ruling through natural law) and the theistic miracle-based paradigm — the theological skeleton behind competing market concepts.

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals pursued an engineered order rather than expecting free markets to emerge naturally #expands (0.95) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1907
• Neoliberals rejected the pure state-versus-market binary as a false dichotomy #expands (0.90) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 9
• Early neoliberalism rejected laissez-faire in favor of a state-built competitive order. #corroborates (0.90) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 365
• Neoliberal thinkers rejected natural-rights foundations, deriving morality from market evolution #expands (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 28
• Neoliberalism’s dominant emotion was anxiety, not confident hubris #expands (0.85) — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists, 81
• Neoliberals distanced themselves from general equilibrium to counter market socialism #expands (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 12