I would opt for answer B: Adam Smith. The eighteenth-century Scottish economist and philosopher believed in what's called the law of unintended consequences. This means, among other things, that a benevolent outcome can often arise out of selfish behavior. In Smith's world-view, economic actors such as firms are indeed selfish, concerned with the maximization of profit and nothing else. Yet, ironically, such selfish behavior tends towards a generally beneficial outcome for society as a whole. Not only luxury goods but staple items such as bread come into being due to the profit motive. As Smith points out, we don't receive our daily bread because of the baker's benevolence, but because he wants to make a profit.
And just as the self-regarding, profit-seeking behavior of economic actors can lead to a generally beneficial outcome, so good intentions can often end up causing great poverty, misery, and suffering. Smith believes that government involvement in the economy is a paradigm example of this. Governments will often intervene in the market to try and ensure a more beneficial outcome for a specific group. Yet Smith thinks this is a big mistake. No one, least of all government ministers, can possibly predict the consequences of their actions further down the road. If we seek certain goods in society, then we're better off attending to our own self-interest, as this has always proven to be the tried and tested method for maximizing wealth and opportunity in society.
Of course, governments do have a role in running the economy. But it's a very restricted one on Smith's reading, limited to setting the general system of rules and regulations in which firms and individuals operate. Those rules and regulations will need to be fine-tuned by government from time to time, but as far as the actual production and allocation of goods is concerned, that should be left to the operation of the free market.