I Wonder If I Am A Libertarian # 4
Key Concepts of Libertarianism
By
January 1, 1999
“The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine”.
What follows is first a quote by the author and then an analysis of the components of that quote, by me.
Quote:
Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It’s easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society — the complex network of associations and connections among people — is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.
End of quote
________________________________________________________________
I first became aware of concept of “spontaneous order” when I was introduced to Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” in a Free Market Economy. The idea is of amazingly complex social interactions that drive a free economy resulting in the production of myriad goods and services, their costs, their distribution channels and marketing strategies within a culture and around the world. At the tail end is the great universe of purchases, consumptions, usages and resale of this indescribable variety of things.
I happily to report recall my father, who was a college and self-educated business man explaining this to me when I was a pre-teenager. It sounded odd to me then—I would use the words counter-intuitive today. I understand now that is counter-intuitive only if one begins their analysis of the principles of economics with the idea that there must be governmental control and planning for economic order to emerge in societies.
Now, in the light of many consistent examples in history of socialist and communist governments attempting to centrally manage large economies it is no longer counter-intuitive to me or others who have studied this matter. Central planning and management of economies commonly suffer failure and even the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people (China, Russia, North Korea, Greece, and France, to name only several).
The simple fact is that the many millions of decisions that must be made daily in a large economy are impossible to make by any one person or bureau of people. The centralized management of a large economy fails every time in comparison to a free market comprising the countless economic activities of millions of individuals doing what they believe is best for themselves and their loved ones. The “Invisible Hand” beats the highly visible bureaucracy every time.
In other writings, Adam Smith also refered to a similar force that naturally functions to organize social interactions and outcomes between the citizens of any society.
In my focused reading over that past few years I have found that there are many other more modern scholarly books that also powerfully document the ubiquitous existence of this social phenomenon of spontaneous order.
David Boaz’ description of this natural developmental force in all civilizations is spot-on correct and the voting public of America remains largely uninformed of its existence.
As a behavioral psychologist, I must conclude that the mechanisms of the “invisible hand” in ordering economic and other social activities organizes and directs the principles of human conditioning and learning and many other social learning principles identified in the 20th Century. Actually, the idea that consequences control behavior dates back to Aristotle.
In order to cooperate to achieve otherwise impossible goals, citizens must develop levels of trust and agreement as to what the appropriate behaviors are that should be held-up as a model for imitation and also be met with social and material rewards. Similar standards spontaneously emerge for those behaviors that are considered bad or damaging and will normally meet with social disapproval, rejection and other forms of punishment.
Psychology is the science of human behavior and its determinants. We have learned recently learned a great deal about what shapes and motivates human behavior. Nothing in the realm of human social action works or fails, respectively, unless the principles of psychology were somehow correctly or incorrectly set to action.
David Boaz finishes his section above by stating: “the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own”.
This statement may seem perplexing. While I am not certain of his exact meaning, at this point in my studies of this and other explanations of spontaneous order and Libertarianism, I have provisionally interpreted his meaning as follows:
Any larger socioculture is composed of many subcultures, organizations and associations. Each of these exist to further their own purposes and pursue their own rewards. They generally do not concern themselves with the “larger picture”, except when it might damage or further their own goals.
In the political arena, it is axiomatic that “all politics are local”. This appears to be true of the of various social groupings as well. I do not like this truth, but it seems to hold up to scrutiny.
If also appears true that ” civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own”. Great societies generally do not remain great for long for many reasons, that are now largely known. One of these reasons, it seems to me, that is stated in quotes above. Therefore, I would recommend, along with B. F. Skinner (the greatest 20th Century psychologist), that the purpose of a new breed of an informed and naturally organized civil society should be its own survival–Long and well.
To do this will require a strong mutually acceptable acculturation process through various effective educations avenues of such sociaocultures youth. This acculturation process should focus upon the common goals, aspirations, and the principles of psychology and other sciences that must be well implemented at every level of society to gain enduring success. As I understand it, Libertarians are not opposed to the governmental identification of the bare essentials of education, to be supplemented in ways that local educators and parents prefer.
The question that I have is: If there were a society of over 400 million people standing on a very long railroad track, with a speeding locomotive in the distance bearing down on them, could this “civil society” be taught how to cooperate together in order to get safely out-of-the-way?
The answer to this question should be yes. Adaptive cultural evolutionary skills can be deduced and taught to citizens could be taught our educational system. In doing so we should be able to revitalize, refine and extend the mechanisms of spontaneous social order into a longer and brighter future for America.
V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.
Please Share This With Friends and Family!
Tags: Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", David Boaz, Libertarianism, Natural Social Organizatio of Behavior Principles, Spontaneous Social Organization, V. Thomas Mawhinney Ph.D., VTM
Cultural Survival Skills 
Leave a Reply