The Natural Rules Of The Natural Order

As I watched a television debate on the revolutions in the Arab world, it struck me that we need to understand how "civil order" happens - naturally. This order exists on its own because all the separate Individuals acting within it towards their own ends follow "rules" that have "evolved" alongside the human mind itself, through the processes of civilisation.

The primary rule is the Inviolability of Property - which is what we see in every bazzaar, when the goods arrayed before a vendor are treated by all as his Property. "Possession indicates Property," as they say. It follows that this unarticulated rule of civilisation ought to be the Basic Law - but communists and socialists think otherwise. Of course, as they never realise, if it were declared in any bazzaar that everything on offer is "common property," all order would instantaneously break down, and all would loot "in the name of the communist brotherhood." Anyone would take anything he wanted from anyone - and say, "Thanks, comrade."

There are two other "natural rules" that operate in human society: Contracts and Torts.  Contracts are "private law" that bind the parties who sign them. Torts are "private compensation" to victims for damages sustained.

All these natural rules we all follow create and sustain "order" - and this, while The Law secures our future. Property, Contracts and Torts are all about the future. They make the uncertain future less uncertain. This is because there is "certainty in the Law" itself.

Society therefore secures the future through "certainty" in The Law - and through the processes of entrepreneurship, for it is entrepreneurs who "make provision for the uncertain future." You get what in The Market only because of entrepreneurs - who have made provision for your uncertain need. All "speculation." But it makes the uncertain future less uncertain.

What "governs" a society is nothing but The Law. And there ought to be a wide "consensus" on this - and that ought to be the true purpose of "politics." In my previous post, I wrote of a "religion of consent." If this religion spreads, and if the "natural rules" of the natural order listed above are widely accepted, then we have the basis for a stable social order. That is, a "political order" - based on the "common recognition of the same rules." Thereafter, it is simple mechanics to establish a "government by consent." These "governors" are not "rulers" nor "law makers"; rather, they are there to perform some basic services within peaceable civil communities, and to Uphold the Law, while effectively being "under" it.

During the debate on the Arab revolutions, some voices were raised for Democracy - and we were informed of 17 "political parties" being in the fray in one such nation. It could well be that some of these parties are being supported by whatever remains of the ancien regime of the tyrants who have been overthrown. It is not "party politics" but "free politics" through which political ideas and ideals are articulated that can establish the "consensus" about the nature of the political order under which all will agree to live - which is "government by consent." The "religion of consent" on which I wrote yesterday holds the key.

The Principle upon which such a consensual society functions without any disorder is the Principle of Non-Aggression. Force is shunned by all - including especially those chosen as governors. Peace reigns. And the international division of labour keeps spreading.

Civilisation!

Liberty!

Natural Order!