Law, Legislation and Liberty

Volume 1 RULES AND ORDER

1 REASON AND EVOLUTION

CONSTRUCTION AND EVOLUTION

There are two main perspectives on human activities that lead to different conclusions about how to change society. The first view suggests that human institutions only serve their purposes when they are intentionally designed, promoting the belief that we can achieve anything through planning. This belief can limit actual achievements by ignoring real limitations. The second view argues that societal order often arises from evolution rather than design, where practices are preserved because they help a group survive, regardless of original intent. This perspective has faced challenges from the first view but has gradually gained recognition since the eighteenth century.

THE TENETS OF CARTESIAN RATIONALISM

Rationalism, especially as seen through Descartes, stresses the importance of clear and logical thinking to find truth. Descartes introduced "radical doubt," questioning beliefs that lack logical proof, which led him to reject traditional morals. His emphasis on reason resulted in the belief that only actions based on clear truths are rational, fostering a dislike for tradition. This view suggests that all cultural institutions are designed by human thought. However, it overlooks the fact that many successful practices come from customs that don't require conscious reasoning.

THE PERMANENT LIMITATIONS OF OUR FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE

Human actions succeed not only because of facts we know but also by adapting to unknown facts, guided by rules we may not even realize we follow. True rational decision-making would need complete knowledge, but in reality, success depends on many details beyond one person's understanding. Everyone has some ignorance, making it hard to explain or influence how society works. In economics, for example, complex relationships arise from individual actions. The idea that we can know all important facts to create a perfect society is a misunderstanding of how complex society really is.

FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND SCIENCE

Many people think that science can solve all problems and that knowledge will keep increasing as science advances. However, society grows by sharing and using knowledge, not just by knowing more. Science can explain simple things well but has a hard time with complex problems because it can't always find all the specific facts needed for accurate predictions. Also, science isn't just about what exists right now; it can help us understand what might happen if certain things change, which is especially important in political science. Focusing only on current facts can lead to poor conclusions about the future.

THE CONCURRENT EVOLUTION OF MIND AND SOCIETY: THE ROLE OF RULES

The mind and society grow together, highlighting the importance of rules in guiding people's actions. Traditional views often separate the mind from social institutions, but the mind actually evolves through interaction with society. People learn behaviors through experiences and the rules that lead to group success, often without recognizing their benefits. As individuals grow in a culture, they internalize rules that shape their actions. They also adopt behaviors by observing others, forming a consistent cultural heritage that persists unless actively examined.

THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF ‘NATURAL’ AND ‘ARTIFICIAL’

The idea of dividing things into 'natural' and 'artificial' has been confusing since ancient Greece. 'Physei' means 'by nature,' and 'nomo' means 'by convention.' This creates debates about whether something is artificial because of human actions or natural because it wasn't made by humans. In the 18th century, some thinkers identified a third category for things created by human actions but not designed by humans. Over time, different views emerged, with medieval scholars seeing social events as natural, while later views focused on logical reasoning instead of human experience.

THE RISE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH

The evolutionary approach in social science started as a way to move beyond older, simple ideas about human behavior. Important thinkers like Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, and Scottish philosophers such as Adam Smith focused on how social patterns develop without being planned by people. Some social scientists hesitate to use this approach because they misunderstand evolution, thinking it only comes from biology. Misunderstandings like "Social Darwinism" also create confusion. Despite these issues, understanding evolution is important for grasping complex social structures.

THE PERSISTENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN CURRENT THOUGHT

Constructivism has influenced many thinkers for the last three hundred years, leading them to question traditional moral and legal rules that couldn't be explained rationally. Figures like Voltaire called for new laws, while Rousseau argued that laws should come from people rather than tradition. This idea continued in the 19th century, with thinkers like Alexander Herzen emphasizing personal morality over set rules. Lord Keynes mentioned that his generation rejected traditional morals, believing they had the right to judge situations individually based on their own judgment, a belief shared by many active thinkers at the time.

OUR ANTHROPOMORPHIC LANGUAGE

The way we talk about society can lead to some wrong ideas. Many words make it seem like social structures and behaviors are designed by someone, rather than happening naturally. This gives the impression that society has its own intentions or plans, which is not true. It's important to clearly show the difference between things that are created on purpose and those that develop on their own. This misunderstanding affects political ideas, especially legal positivism, which incorrectly thinks that all laws come from individual decisions. Also, the term "function" can mislead people into believing that purposes always need conscious planning.

REASON AND ABSTRACTION

Rationalism, often connected to constructivism, is misunderstood when critics claim that reason must recognize its limits and the role of unconscious processes. While rationalism suggests using reason well, it doesn't mean that every action must come from conscious thought, which can lead to unreasonable decisions. There is a difference between constructivist rationalism and evolutionary rationalism, with the latter seeing abstraction as an important tool for handling a complicated world. Abstraction helps us simplify situations and act successfully, even when we don't know why we're doing it. Unconscious rules are important for how we function, rather than just being an echo of conscious thought.

WHY THE EXTREME FORMS OF CONSTRUCTIVIST RATIONALISM REGULARLY LEAD TO A REVOLT AGAINST REASON

Extreme versions of constructivist rationalism often cause people to reject reason. This happens when individuals expect too much from reason and end up disappointed, leading them to focus more on their personal feelings than on logical thinking. Supporters believe that reason can decide what is right, but they overlook the importance of emotions in making choices. When they try to use these ideas in real life, they discover that people can’t always agree on goals just by using reason. This leads to a limit on how reason can guide society, resulting in a focus on specific situations, which can undermine the role of reason in shaping our actions and communities.

2 COSMOS AND TAXIS

THE CONCEPT OF ORDER

The main idea discussed is the concept of order, which can be classified into two types: 'made' and 'grown' orders. Order is crucial for understanding complex phenomena, as it helps predict outcomes based on the relationships between various elements. Every society has some form of order, often without it being deliberately created. This order allows individuals to rely on the expectations of others' actions. The traditional view links order to authority and command, but this perspective overlooks spontaneous, internal forms of order that develop naturally within systems.

THE TWO SOURCES OF ORDER

There are two types of order: made order and grown order. Made order, also called exogenous order or artificial order, is created by human design, while grown order, known as spontaneous order or endogenous order, emerges naturally from the actions of many individuals without a specific plan. Understanding these two types is crucial for social theory. Although some people struggle to recognize that social and economic patterns can arise without deliberate planning, examples like language and morals show that these orders develop through evolution. Spontaneous orders, like the market, are not always easy to perceive, as they require intellectual analysis rather than direct observation.

THE DISTINGUISHING PROPERTIES OF SPONTANEOUS ORDERS

Spontaneous orders differ from deliberate arrangements in several key ways. While man-made orders are simpler and serve a specific purpose, spontaneous orders can be complex and may not be directly perceivable. They can exist based on abstract relations, which might change in terms of individual elements while still maintaining their structure. Although spontaneous orders do not have a purpose, the actions of individuals within them can help preserve the order. It is better to describe these actions as functions rather than purposes.

SPONTANEOUS ORDERS IN NATURE

Spontaneous orders in nature demonstrate how complex structures can form without needing to manually place each element. For instance, crystals and organic compounds create order based on the regular behavior of their atoms, influenced by their initial positions and environmental conditions. Similarly, in a physics experiment with iron filings, while the general shape of their arrangement can be predicted, the exact positions depend on numerous variables like weight and surface texture. Overall, the patterns formed are guided by known rules, but many specific details remain unpredictable.

IN SOCIETY, RELIANCE ON SPONTANEOUS ORDER BOTH EXTENDS AND LIMITS OUR POWERS OF CONTROL

Spontaneous order in society allows for both increased and decreased control. It develops when individuals adapt to situations without anyone having complete knowledge. While this order creates complex structures, it is hard to understand and influence them. We can change rules affecting overall order but cannot control specific details due to many unknown factors. The extent of order hinges on how predictable relationships are. Despite its flaws, spontaneous ordering is crucial, especially in markets where diverse knowledge combines activities into a unified system.

SPONTANEOUS ORDERS RESULT FROM THEIR ELEMENTS OBEYING CERTAIN RULES OF CONDUCT

Spontaneous orders are formed when individuals follow certain rules in their interactions, which may be unspoken or not fully understood. These rules differ from those of organized groups and can lead to both order and chaos. While many societal rules guide behavior, not all behaviors result in positive order; some may lead to destruction. Successful societies require individuals to follow rules that promote cooperation. In modern economies, people often act to maximize income, but they must also adhere to norms that guide behavior for a healthy societal order.

THE SPONTANEOUS ORDER OF SOCIETY IS MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Collaboration in larger groups involves both spontaneous order and organized structure. While organization helps with specific tasks, spontaneous order is important for dealing with complex situations. In free societies, different groups work towards particular goals, and their actions are guided by the overall spontaneous order, which includes families, businesses, and other institutions. Society has flexible boundaries that allow people to be part of multiple groups. Government plays a key role in maintaining order and enforcing rules, but society could exist without it. It's important to understand the difference between society and government.

THE RULES OF SPONTANEOUS ORDERS AND THE RULES OF ORGANIZATION

Spontaneous order and organization are different ideas that can work together but shouldn't be confused. Organizations use specific commands and rules to guide people toward shared goals, with clear roles for each person. In contrast, spontaneous order uses general, flexible rules that apply to many people and allow for personal decision-making without a central authority. This spontaneous order helps manage the complexity of modern society as it grows naturally over time. Changing rules can improve this order, while strict commands may disrupt individual choices, leading to different views on law and freedom.

THE TERMS ‘ORGANISM’ AND ‘ORGANIZATION’

The terms "organism" and "organization" highlight two different types of social order. "Organism" describes living structures with fixed roles, used historically to analyze society but can be misleading due to the fluidity of social roles. In contrast, "organization" refers to a planned structure created for specific goals, gaining popularity during the French Revolution. While organizations can efficiently reach their objectives, they often overlook the need for adaptability and the natural dynamics that keep societies functioning well. Balancing both concepts is essential.

3 PRINCIPLES AND EXPEDIENCY

INDIVIDUAL AIMS AND COLLECTIVE BENEFITS

The main idea is that individual freedom, where people can use their knowledge for their own purposes under fair rules, leads to the best outcomes for everyone. This freedom is maintained when authorities, including majority rule, are limited by common principles. Individual freedom has been protected by vague principles that guide public opinion, especially in the West. While individual efforts are important, collective action can also help achieve personal and altruistic aims. There is no direct link between selfishness and individual actions or between altruism and collective efforts.

FREEDOM CAN BE PRESERVED ONLY BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AND IS DESTROYED BY FOLLOWING EXPEDIENCY

Freedom is best protected by adhering to strong principles rather than seeking short-term convenience, which can lead to its destruction. Good societies require a set of guiding principles instead of selectively choosing options that appear beneficial. While some modern thinkers believe practical, case-by-case solutions can improve society, this approach often creates unforeseen issues that limit freedom. Over the years, a shift away from consistent principles has led to unintended consequences, undermining the control people have over societal outcomes.

THE ‘NECESSITIES’ OF POLICY ARE GENERALLY THE CONSEQUENCES OF EARLIER MEASURES

Political measures often create consequences that seem inevitable, yet this view can shift depending on whether the outcomes are positive or negative. People tend to reject the idea that undesirable results stem from past decisions, believing instead that they can design society as they wish. However, the reality is that many policy "necessities" emerge from our previous actions. Successful social organization requires adherence to guiding principles rather than random experimentation. Historical examples suggest that while the English appeared to have less discourse on principles, they were more guided by strong intuitions compared to the French, whose debates hindered firm principles from developing.

THE DANGER OF ATTACHING GREATER IMPORTANCE TO THE PREDICTABLE RATHER THAN TO THE MERELY POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS

It is challenging to keep a free system because it requires following general rules instead of going for quick solutions that might seem effective but can harm freedom. People need to believe in clear principles, or they might accept restrictions on their rights too easily. Terms like 'capitalism' and 'liberalism' have lost their clear meaning and can be misleading. If society continues on this confusing path, it risks losing its freedoms and could end up in a totalitarian state, where current ideas overpower traditional beliefs.

SPURIOUS REALISM AND THE REQUIRED COURAGE TO CONSIDER UTOPIA

Understanding complex social systems, known as spontaneous orders, can be challenging because they are unpredictable and difficult to manage. This often leads to calls for government intervention to restore balance. Rather than focusing on every small detail, it is more effective to create broad mental models to comprehend these systems. Utopias, or ideal societies, may seem unrealistic, but they are important for guiding rational policies and striving for a better social order. Balancing the complexity of these systems with the desire for improvement is crucial.

THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN POLITICAL EVOLUTION

Legislation is the primary way to create change in society, but completely new legal systems are not feasible. As laws evolve, they do so by applying general principles to specific situations, often producing unexpected results. Lawyers play a key role in this process, usually working within existing laws to maintain stability. However, if new legal ideas become influential, they can drive rapid changes in the legal system. Currently, there are shifts toward prioritizing broader governmental interests over individual rights, raising concerns among those who value traditional legal practices.

THE MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW HAS BEEN GUIDED LARGELY BY FALSE ECONOMICS

Modern law has been heavily influenced by misunderstandings about economics, with both lawyers and economists playing a role. Lawyers often use legal ideas they learned without fully understanding their impact on society, and economists tend to ignore how legal rules matter in their theories. This has led to changes in society that are not well thought out. Many legal ideas are based on old beliefs, causing new lawyers to trust government decisions too much. This can support unfair systems, especially in Germany, where some thinkers have pushed for laws that focus more on goals and less on protecting individual freedoms.

4 THE CHANGING CONCEPT OF LAW

LAW IS OLDER THAN LEGISLATION

Law has existed long before formal legislation, serving as a set of rules that helps maintain peace in society. Early humans followed unwritten rules to fit into their communities, seeing these rules as natural truths. While many today think laws are only created through legislative processes, this view is misleading. Laws actually emerged from the needs of society and evolved naturally rather than just through human intention. Recognizing this historical evolution can change our understanding of how laws are formed.

THE LESSONS OF ETHOLOGY AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

The study of animal behavior and human society shows that people established rules of conduct long before they could express them with words. These rules developed to maintain order and ensure survival within groups. Unlike simpler animals, higher vertebrates learn and culturally pass down rules, fostering distinct traditions. Many animal societies have created complex behaviors to manage conflict and maintain peace, such as established territories and social hierarchies. As humans gained language, they began to articulate these rules, which often existed before verbal expression. Today, many societal rules still remain unspoken.

THE PROCESS OF ARTICULATION OF PRACTICES

Early tribal leaders used rules to keep order, but these rules were often not clearly defined in words; they were learned through imitation. Language helped explain expected actions but wasn't fully developed for general rules. People learned through observing others. When rules were challenged, leaders needed to verbally clarify them, aiming for agreement rather than creating new ones. This articulation process sometimes led to new rules that existed alongside old practices. Overall, even new rules were viewed as uncovering existing principles, highlighting the ongoing effort to maintain social order.

FACTUAL AND NORMATIVE RULES

There are two types of rules: descriptive rules, which explain what people do, and normative rules, which define how people should behave. It can be challenging to distinguish between them, especially when rules are unclear. Normative rules often involve personal judgments, while descriptive rules show actual behaviors. In early thinking, there is confusion between how things are done and how they should be done. People may follow norms to maintain group order rather than for personal success, indicating that norms serve a larger purpose.

EARLY LAW

In early civilizations, laws were seen as unchanging and were thought to be established by divine or historical authority, not created by individuals. Famous law-givers aimed to clarify existing laws rather than invent new ones. Although rulers believed law was a fixed concept, it still evolved through the interactions of people, especially in trade and conflict, leading to new, unwritten customs that shaped behavior. This organic development of social rules laid the foundation for a more open society, independent of direct government control.

THE CLASSICAL AND THE MEDIEVAL TRADITION

Law began in ancient Greece with the idea that it came from human intention, but changing laws was difficult. In classical Athens, only a special group could alter laws, causing tension between people's desires and the law. Roman law, developed by legal experts rather than direct legislation, focused on discovering existing justice principles. For almost a thousand years, law in Western Europe was seen as something to uncover. From the thirteenth century, law-making began aligning with rulers' will, while England maintained a common law system that fostered independence and freedom from direct rule.

THE DISTINCTIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LAW ARISING FROM CUSTOM AND PRECEDENT

Law that comes from custom and precedent has unique qualities compared to laws made by a ruler. These laws are often abstract and help people understand acceptable behavior in society without targeting specific results. Common law judges base their decisions on reasonable expectations related to established practices, focusing on whether actions follow recognized rules. They are not concerned with the overall outcomes but with the adherence to customs. This approach allows judges to create general principles that promote order rather than enforce specific commands.

WHY GROWN LAW REQUIRES CORRECTION BY LEGISLATION

Growth in law can lead to undesirable outcomes that need to be corrected through legislation. While law developed over time may have good aspects, it doesn't mean all its rules are beneficial. Judicial processes for changing law are slow and often unable to address past mistakes or injustices effectively. Changes in legal rules are necessary when prior developments are recognized as flawed, often due to biases favoring specific groups. To ensure justice and guide expectations, significant legal changes should be clearly established before being enforced, rather than relying solely on judges' decisions.

THE ORIGIN OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES

Legislative bodies, which create laws, have their origins in the authority for organizing government. Initially, rulers made rules for their officials without distinguishing between administrative tasks and justice enforcement. As these rulers needed to impose laws, they often required support from powerful subjects, leading to the involvement of representative bodies. These early assemblies did not solely focus on justice rules but were engaged in various governmental functions. Over time, the process of making laws expanded from organizing government to changing established rules of conduct.

ALLEGIANCE AND SOVEREIGNTY

The nature of law and power involves two key ideas. First, a legislator's power should be unlimited, as any limitation would suggest a higher authority. Second, laws are created based on the will of the legislator, which can turn them into tools for exercising power rather than restrictions. However, public opinion plays a crucial role in limiting this power, as legislators must align with societal expectations to be seen as legitimate. Public support is essential for all governments, including dictatorships, influencing the laws they can enact.

5 NOMOS: THE LAW OF LIBERTY

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE JUDGE

Judges are important for maintaining judge-made law, which represents society's natural order based on people's interactions and shared expectations. Laws emerge from common understandings rather than being imposed by authority. Even in groups without formal governments, shared rules can create order through respect and social pressure. Judges resolve disputes by interpreting existing customs, rather than enforcing imposed laws. They help define fairness and justice according to societal values, ensuring that people follow the shared standards crucial for coexistence.

HOW THE TASK OF THE JUDGE DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE HEAD OF AN ORGANIZATION

The tasks of a judge and a leader differ significantly. A judge focuses on interpreting and enforcing abstract rules that maintain peace and address disputes, without aiming for specific outcomes dictated by an authority. In contrast, a leader organizes actions to achieve particular goals based on commands. Judges establish rules based on observed behavior rather than commands given to individuals. Their role is to ensure that personal expectations align with existing social order, promoting stability and preventing disruptions, rather than enforcing specific directives from higher authorities.

THE AIM OF JURISDICTION IS THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ONGOING ORDER OF ACTIONS

Jurisdiction focuses on keeping order in how people act with one another. Judges use specific rules to help achieve this order, but not all rules work equally well. For people to interact harmoniously, their actions should not conflict and should be able to coordinate. Effective rules help individuals, even strangers, understand what to expect from each other. Judges are important for refining and clarifying these rules, especially when conflicts occur. The legal system grows through natural customs and the thoughtful actions of judges to maintain stability.

‘ACTIONS TOWARDS OTHERS’ AND THE PROTECTION OF EXPECTATIONS

Disputes brought before judges focus on actions that affect others, rather than private actions that don't involve others. Legal rules arise from conflicts between these actions, and the law can't prohibit all actions that might cause harm because it's impossible to foresee all outcomes. Instead, the law provides certain protections for expectations but cannot cover all of them. As new rules are created to protect existing expectations, they can also lead to new conflicts, making it an ongoing process of trial and error for judges and lawmakers to determine the legitimacy of these expectations.

IN A DYNAMIC ORDER OF ACTIONS ONLY SOME EXPECTATIONS CAN BE PROTECTED

In a constantly changing world, not all expectations can be protected by rules. Sometimes, disappointing certain expectations can lead to better outcomes. People often change partnerships, which may upset others, but the law aims to prevent specific harms rather than guarantee that no one faces disruption. Flexibility is important for adapting to new situations, and rigidly sticking to past expectations can cause chaos. Instead, it's crucial to identify which expectations to safeguard to maintain overall order while recognizing that laws must connect to real-world experiences.

THE MAXIMAL COINCIDENCE OF EXPECTATIONS IS ACHIEVED BY THE DELIMITATION OF PROTECTED DOMAINS

Rules of conduct help make people's expectations more certain by creating order, even if some expectations may not always be met. It is important to decide which expectations should be legally protected to reduce conflicts. Clear property rights allow people to act freely without bothering each other. Although some recent ideas question traditional views of property, the concept has been important throughout history. Setting clear boundaries helps maintain freedoms and prevents conflicts, which supports social order and helps the economy by encouraging teamwork and division of labor.

THE GENERAL PROBLEM OF THE EFFECTS OF VALUES ON FACTS

Values play a crucial role in shaping facts and influencing how society functions. They guide people's behavior and create patterns that may go unnoticed. Over time, these patterns can become values themselves, leading individuals to follow them without questioning why. Conflicts can arise between different values, and some values may depend on others without clear reasons. Understanding values is important for social scientists, as any proposed changes in society must align with existing values to maintain stability and avoid disrupting the social order.

THE ‘PURPOSE’ OF LAW

Law plays a crucial role in organizing how people interact, though its purpose can be difficult to define. While early thinkers linked law to the natural order, modern views recognize that law helps various individual goals coexist rather than just aiming for specific outcomes. There are disagreements among legal philosophers about law's purpose, with some arguing it has none and others emphasizing its importance. Understanding the broader social context of laws is important, as many legal discussions often focus too narrowly on specific cases.

THE ARTICULATION OF THE LAW AND THE PREDICTABILITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Judges aim to maintain order by making decisions that reflect justice, but they often face conflicts when established rules don't match public expectations. They need to balance these competing demands, sometimes adjusting rules or creating new ones. The notion that written laws always lead to predictable decisions is challenged, as strict adherence can limit fair outcomes. Judges may achieve better predictability by following a general sense of justice. Additionally, many legal principles are understood informally, suggesting that judges should adapt decisions according to these principles for true justice.

THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDGE IS CONFINED TO A SPONTANEOUS ORDER

The role of a judge is to uphold and improve existing rules that have developed over time based on people’s shared expectations. Judges intervene when rules are unclear or not being followed, adjusting them to avoid conflicts and ensure fairness. They interpret past rulings to create principles for new situations and aim to help people form accurate expectations. While they may generate new rules, judges focus on maintaining a balanced social order rather than serving specific interests or groups. Their ultimate goal is to support a fair system that allows everyone to pursue their aims in a cooperative society.

CONCLUSIONS

The law consists of rules that guide how people behave toward each other, and these rules aim to protect individuals and groups. They are intended to be lasting but can be updated based on new understanding. All rules work together as part of a larger system, and their main purpose is to create a fair order in society. In contrast, rules set by authorities for organizing government serve specific goals and are intentionally created, differing from the natural laws developed by judges.

6 THESIS: THE LAW OF LEGISLATION

LEGISLATION ORIGINATES FROM THE NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING RULES OF ORGANIZATION

Legislation focuses on creating rules for government operations rather than just laws for society. Historically, common law in England showed that legislatures aimed to manage government functions. Their main role is to organize government actions and ensure justice. While societal rules can evolve naturally, government needs clear rules outlining its structure and responsibilities. This includes guidelines for enforcing justice. Legislative bodies emerged to gain public support, especially for taxes, leading to institutions that prioritize government management alongside law creation.

LAW AND STATUTE: THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW AND THE EXECUTION OF COMMANDS

Laws created by legislatures are different from general rules of conduct. Terms like "statute" or "enactment" describe specific laws set by authority, while "law" typically refers to accepted behavior guidelines. Most actions taken by legislatures focus on government operations rather than moral standards. When new laws are enacted, they can alter or replace existing rules, and the process of enforcing these laws differs from simply obeying moral rules. Statutes require execution, but that does not mean they are moral in nature.

LEGISLATION AND THE THEORY OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS

The separation of powers theory has caused confusion about the meaning of "law." At first, legislation was thought to mean creating general rules for behavior, which courts enforce through their decisions. The executive branch only carries out these court decisions. The term "legislature" developed with this theory, showing that lawmakers should only make general laws and should not deal with individual cases. This idea became popular in England, but in the 19th century, some thinkers argued for a stronger legislature that could do more than just follow established laws.

THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES

Legislatures are groups created for representative government that do more than just make laws; they also oversee government actions. Attempts to limit their role to only law-making failed because it would reduce their power to control the government. While some suggest legislatures should follow general laws created by a democratic group, they play a crucial role in enforcing laws and managing services. Over time, governments have expanded their responsibilities, indicating a growth in their power beyond just enforcing laws and maintaining order.

PRIVATE LAW AND PUBLIC LAW

Private law and public law are two categories of law that address different areas. Private law deals with the rights and responsibilities of individual people, while public law focuses on how the government is organized and serves the public interest. The lines between these two types of law have become less clear, as government actions are often exempt from general rules that affect individuals. This change has led to a greater emphasis on public law, which can overshadow the importance of private law and individual rights, impacting societal views and legal philosophies.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional law consists of rules that organize and restrict government actions, making it a vital area of law. These laws are based on agreements made after struggles for rights and governance, but they mainly support existing laws rather than define what is right. When governments change, usual laws often stay in place for continuity. A constitution limits government power and establishes valid law criteria but does not define moral conduct. Scholars debate how to differentiate constitutional law from other law types due to these complexities.

FINANCIAL LEGISLATION

The difference between political laws and juridical laws is especially clear in finance. A government budget is a plan of action that allows government agencies to operate, rather than a set of moral rules. Most budgets focus on how to spend money rather than establishing conduct rules. While budgets guide government actions, they should still be subject to general rules of justice that apply to everyone. This is particularly important in taxation, where questions about fairness arise in deciding how financial burdens are shared among individuals and groups.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND THE POLICE POWER

Administrative law focuses on the rules that guide how government agencies work and manage resources while being accountable to the public. It includes regulations that apply to both government officials and private citizens, and some powers can be given to local agencies. These rules must follow the same limits as laws made by the legislature. Administrative law also helps control people and property, balancing public safety with personal freedoms. There is debate about how much power police should have, especially in privately owned places that the public can access.

THE ‘MEASURES’ OF POLICY

Government services, especially those seen as essential for the economic system, often aim to benefit specific groups rather than all citizens equally. These targeted actions are called "measures" of policy. Since these benefits are not evenly distributed, conflicts among different interests can arise, requiring compromises to find solutions. It is important that the authorities overseeing these measures follow general rules and do not change them arbitrarily. Limiting the public sector and allowing private agencies to offer similar services can help maintain a balanced market.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF PRIVATE LAW INTO PUBLIC LAW BY ‘SOCIAL’ LEGISLATION

Over the last century, there has been a shift from private law to public law mainly to achieve social goals, like eliminating discrimination that favored powerful groups. Equal treatment does not mean giving advantages to those who faced past unfairness; it means applying the same rules to everyone. Justice emphasizes fairness in transactions rather than specific outcomes. Social legislation includes government services to support weaker groups, which may raise taxes. This change has been especially evident in Western countries, with an increased focus on government regulation for social purposes rather than individual freedoms.

THE MENTAL BIAS OF A LEGISLATURE PREOCCUPIED WITH GOVERNMENT

A legislature that focuses on organization rather than law-making may start to view itself as a managing body that runs the country like a factory. This creates an expectation that it can solve all societal grievances, leading to the belief that all dissatisfaction can be addressed simultaneously. However, trying to fix specific issues often results in new problems elsewhere. The aim to satisfy everyone's complaints can lead to detailed planning and control over individual actions, diminishing the importance of general rules of conduct.

Volume 2 THE MIRAGE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

7 GENERAL WELFARE AND PARTICULAR PURPOSES

IN A FREE SOCIETY THE GENERAL GOOD CONSISTS PRINCIPALLY IN THE FACILITATION OF THE PURSUIT OF UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL PURPOSES

In a free society, the main focus is on helping individuals pursue their own unknown goals rather than enforcing common interests. The government should only use force for the public good, but defining this can be challenging. Often, those in power present their interests as public interests. Instead of trying to meet everyone's specific needs, the government should create conditions that allow individuals and groups to fulfill their own needs. By having general rules, people can work together and maintain social order while pursuing their personal aims.

THE GENERAL INTEREST AND COLLECTIVE GOODS

The welfare of society depends on rules that maintain a spontaneous order. Collective goods are essential services that everyone benefits from, but often require mandatory funding since they cannot be limited to payers. Not all collective interests benefit society; they must outweigh individual burdens to be considered a general interest. Historically, there's been tension between serving specific groups and the overall good. Governments should distribute resources fairly, ensuring contributions determine what each group receives, focusing on equitable needs rather than just majority desires.

RULES AND IGNORANCE

In a complex society, rules of conduct are necessary to help people make decisions amid uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Individuals use these rules as tools, relying on their own information to achieve immediate and long-term goals. The unique circumstances and knowledge of each person affect their choices, which can lead to innovation in a free market. However, this also results in inequalities due to differing opportunities. The government should not try to equalize outcomes but focus on creating conditions that allow individual freedom and adaptation, benefiting society as a whole.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ABSTRACT RULES AS GUIDES IN A WORLD IN WHICH MOST OF THE PARTICULARS ARE UNKNOWN

People often make decisions based on general and abstract rules rather than specific facts. These rules guide behavior in society, helping maintain order and shared understanding. In large societies, members typically recognize familiar abstract features rather than concrete specifics, such as traditions and shared values. Even distinct symbols represent underlying abstract concepts. Individuals may have similar goals, but their specific circumstances vary. What connects them in society is their adherence to the same abstract rules, which shapes how they act and interact with one another.

WILL AND OPINION, ENDS AND VALUES, COMMANDS AND RULES, AND OTHER TERMINOLOGICAL ISSUES

As societies grow and become more diverse, agreeing on specific goals is challenging. People often find common ground on broader ideas about what type of society they want, influenced by their different backgrounds and experiences. While individuals from similar cultural backgrounds may have shared opinions on social concepts, unclear language can complicate discussions. Important terms are defined to clarify meaning, such as "will" for desire leading to actions, and "opinion" for views that influence decisions. Commands direct actions while rules offer guidance for uncertain future situations, leading to different decision-making structures in society.

ABSTRACT RULES OPERATE AS ULTIMATE VALUES BECAUSE THEY SERVE UNKNOWN PARTICULAR ENDS

Abstract rules are considered ultimate values because they help resolve conflicts and keep order, even when individual interests differ. They are applied consistently in similar past cases. When one party uses a recognized rule, the other can counter it with another valid rule. Justice relies on reaching agreement on general rules, despite disagreements on details. These rules define what is considered just or unjust and must be applied universally. They are essential for societal stability, serving broader goals and ensuring that actions follow permanent principles.

THE CONSTRUCTIVIST FALLACY OF UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is a theory that looks at actions based on their usefulness to society, mainly focusing on pleasure and satisfaction. It has two main types: "act" utilitarianism, which judges individual actions, and "rule" utilitarianism, which considers the overall value of rules over time. A major problem with utilitarianism is that it assumes people can foresee all the consequences of their actions, which is not realistic. Rules come from shared social experiences and are meant to solve common problems and maintain order without needing specific knowledge of outcomes. The idea of measuring happiness for the most people is not clear-cut, so rules should help promote growth and adaptability in society.

ALL VALID CRITICISM OR IMPROVEMENT OF RULES OF CONDUCT MUST PROCEED WITHIN A GIVEN SYSTEM OF SUCH RULES

Criticism and improvement of rules of conduct must occur within existing systems of rules, which are shaped by past experiences. Completely new systems cannot be created; instead, specific rules should be evaluated based on how they fit into the established structure. This evaluation, known as "immanent criticism," looks at how rules work together and address conflicts. Tradition can guide criticism, and the effectiveness of rules often depends on others' adherence to them. Moral relativism exists since rules vary by society, and moral obligations arise from shared societal rules that maintain order. Continuous improvement requires working within the established framework.

‘GENERALIZATION’ AND THE TEST OF UNIVERSALIZABILITY

Generalization and universalization are important for judging rules of behavior based on whether they fit well with other accepted values. When asking about generalization, we think about what would happen if everyone acted a certain way, which can show the need to ban certain actions that might cause harm, even if they seem fine in some cases. The key question is whether we can agree to apply a rule to everyone. This involves checking how well the rule fits within the larger system of rules and values, sometimes needing changes to keep everything working together smoothly in case of conflicts.

TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS RULES MUST BE APPLIED THROUGH THE LONG RUN

Rules are important because they help manage our uncertainty about the consequences of our actions. They are most effective when followed consistently over time, as they create a stable order even if individuals may not fully understand their purpose. Unlike short-term organizational rules focused on immediate outcomes, which can lead to conflicts and restrictions on freedom, long-term rules aim for a greater societal order. This belief contrasts with the idea that everything should be designed and controlled, highlighting the value of trusting in unpredictable social forces as part of maintaining freedom.

8 THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE

JUSTICE IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF HUMAN CONDUCT

Justice is about how people behave and interact rather than just situations. It involves guidelines for proper conduct that help society function naturally. While some think all laws relate to justice, this isn't entirely true since justice requires human action and responsibility. Sometimes, achieving a just outcome is a moral obligation, but it must be done in a moral way. Justice can be judged against accepted standards, and if a common rule is unjust, it shows the rule is flawed. Ultimately, justice relates to human choices and actions within established rules, not just outcomes.

JUSTICE AND THE LAW

It is important to distinguish between laws that promote justice and other types of laws. Laws that ensure just conduct, particularly private and criminal laws, are essential for maintaining individual freedom in society. These just laws must be recognized and enforced, even when social pressure supports their observance instead of formal government enforcement. Additionally, rules that define property rights and obligations help clarify how justice is maintained and understood within the legal system.

RULES OF JUST CONDUCT ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITIONS OF UNJUST CONDUCT

Rules of just conduct mainly prohibit unjust behavior and are designed to be general, applying to many situations instead of specific cases. They focus on negative actions to protect individual freedoms within certain boundaries. While most rules prevent harmful actions, exceptions exist for specific duties in family law and emergencies. These rules clarify what actions can be taken, emphasizing reasonable expectations from others. They aim to promote fair interactions and reduce conflict, though they cannot ensure success in personal goals, as many factors influence outcomes. Overall, they encourage cooperation while respecting individual freedom.

NOT ONLY THE RULES OF JUST CONDUCT, BUT ALSO THE TEST OF THEIR JUSTICE, ARE NEGATIVE

Justice has evolved from focusing on specific outcomes in small communities to a broader approach in larger societies that relies on universal rules. Laws must apply equally to everyone, emphasizing consistency over individual interests. This allows societies to function despite individuals' limited knowledge of each situation. Creating fair rules requires collaboration and consideration of established principles rather than arbitrary decisions. As society changes, rules may need to adapt, emphasizing logical reasoning over emotional responses to build a just society. Balancing traditional and modern ideas is key to progress.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER OF THE TEST OF INJUSTICE

Identifying what is unjust is crucial for improving existing laws, even without clear standards for justice. A test for injustice can guide changes in laws to make them fairer, but it cannot create a completely new legal system. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative helps distinguish the unjust rather than define justice itself. Additionally, legal positivism shows that there are no clear positive criteria for justice, but this does not equate to personal opinions. Instead, we can establish fair rules through negative testing, leading to thoughtful legal reforms.

THE IDEOLOGY OF LEGAL POSITIVISM

Legal positivism is a theory that states valid laws come from human authorities through specific actions. It contrasts "positive law," which is created by people, with natural laws. Early thinkers noted that true law is made by recognized legislators and distinguished between "real law" and "unreal law," which lacks legitimacy. Legal positivism also argues that all laws are the same and that justice is not a factor in defining them. This view may reduce law to mere commands, overlooking its connection to justice and moral standards.

THE ‘PURE THEORY OF LAW’

The pure theory of law argues that lawmakers have complete power to create laws, and courts should interpret those laws based on what the lawmakers intended. However, Hans Kelsen’s ideas, including terms like 'norm' and 'basic norm', can be confusing about how laws get their authority. Critics say this view simplifies the law too much and ignores the important role of justice. Focusing only on what lawmakers decide can lead to laws that hurt individual rights. A better understanding of law should also include the importance of justice and personal freedoms.

LAW AND MORALS

The relationship between law and morals is complicated. Legal positivism suggests that laws do not necessarily reflect moral values and can sometimes conflict with them. Judges may consider moral rules to understand the law better when it involves moral concepts. Laws should mainly protect individual rights and not interfere in personal matters. The development of customs and morals occurs naturally, while laws can be rigid. Also, current moral standards can affect what laws are made and how they are applied. Ultimately, not all moral rules should be enforced as laws.

THE ‘LAW OF NATURE’

Legal theory has confusion around the term "natural law," which mixes different ideas opposed to legal positivism. Legal positivists say that laws come from humans or a higher power. In contrast, traditional natural law suggests that laws develop naturally over time, rather than being created on purpose. The current use of "natural" is confusing and not useful for scientific discussions. The evolutionary approach sees law as a part of society that grows through its functions, focusing on unspoken rules that help keep social order, rather than coming from a divine source or human design.

LAW AND SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty is a key idea in positivist legal theory, seen as the unlimited power of a supreme legislative authority. This view supports the concept of popular sovereignty, where a democratic legislature holds unrestricted power. However, if the legislator's authority comes from societal opinions on acceptable rules, then their power can be limited without needing higher authority. The positivist view that all law comes solely from the legislator's will overlooks the fact that lawmakers must respect existing moral standards. The concepts of sovereignty and the state can complicate discussions of legal systems and may even undermine the idea of international law. Additionally, the history of constitutionalism reflects a struggle against the idea of an all-powerful state.

9 ‘SOCIAL’ OR DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

THE CONCEPT OF ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’

The concept of "social justice" focuses on how society treats individuals and groups, but it often misinterprets how markets function. Many believe market outcomes are planned, while they actually occur naturally. The term has evolved in the last century to emphasize fair treatment of individuals rather than just resource distribution. Social justice relates to "distributive justice" which involves giving people what they deserve. However, society doesn't act as a unit, making it unrealistic to expect fair sharing of resources from everyone. Thus, judging market outcomes by personal fairness standards can be unjust.

THE CONQUEST OF PUBLIC IMAGINATION BY ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’

The idea of social justice has become a significant part of political discussions, influencing government actions aimed at helping specific groups. While many agree on its importance, opinions vary on its definition and effectiveness in creating a fair society. Rooted in socialism, the focus has shifted from socializing production to redistributing wealth through taxes and services. Social justice is now seen as a standard of moral conduct, embraced by various movements, including authoritarian regimes. Critics argue that pursuing social justice may restrict personal freedom and challenge fundamental societal values.

THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE TO THE RESULTS OF A SPONTANEOUS PROCESS

The concept of "social justice" is not applicable in a market economy because it lacks meaning when individuals choose occupations freely. Additionally, enforcing a specific resource distribution based on government assessments would disrupt the market's nature. Feelings of injustice can arise when capable individuals fail and less deserving ones succeed, but these results stem from unpredictable factors in a free system, not from wrongdoing. In a market economy, wealth differences cannot be deemed just or unjust, as they result from personal choices and uncontrollable events.

THE RATIONALE OF THE ECONOMIC GAME IN WHICH ONLY THE CONDUCT OF THE PLAYERS BUT NOT THE RESULT CAN BE JUST

Justice in society focuses on how people treat each other and the intentions behind their actions, rather than the unpredictable outcomes of those actions. In markets, goods and services are distributed based on many unknown factors, making it hard to label results as just or unjust. Although people can act fairly, outcomes may lead to some facing undeserved difficulties. Market rewards often depend on usefulness rather than individual effort, showing that results don’t always reflect merit. Despite this unpredictability, the freedom to pursue personal interests benefits society overall.

THE ALLEGED NECESSITY OF A BELIEF IN THE JUSTICE OF REWARDS

People tend to accept large inequalities in wealth if they believe that individuals generally get what they deserve. This belief supports the idea of social justice, which is thought to be necessary for a free society. However, the market order was not originally based on these beliefs but developed after people realized that just prices were determined by fair competition rather than subjective judgments. While success in the market often comes with the belief that it is earned through personal effort, this can also lead to unrealistic expectations. Encouraging belief in merit-based rewards can motivate many but may also mislead others who struggle despite their efforts.

THERE IS NO ‘VALUE TO SOCIETY’

The search for a fair price or wage has been difficult because there are no universal principles for defining justice in this area. The idea that services have a fixed "value to society" is misleading, as values are subjective and vary among individuals. Market wages often reflect demand rather than actual worth. People may accept high salaries in some fields but question them in others. Ultimately, the concept of "social justice" does not provide clear guidance for determining fair wages, as it lacks a solid foundation.

THE MEANING OF ‘SOCIAL’

The word 'social' used to clearly relate to the structure and operations of society. Over time, 'social justice' has come to mean that society should look after all its members, especially the poor. This change made 'social' focus more on moral responsibility rather than just social norms. Now, terms like 'social democracy' or 'social market economy' can mean many different things, which creates confusion. Because of this, new terms like 'societal' have been created to help explain these ideas better.

‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’ AND EQUALITY

Social justice often refers to the idea of equality, suggesting that differences in earnings or ownership should benefit everyone. However, income differences arise from a complex mix of factors and are not merely rewards determined by authority. Effort and talent do influence success, but society's outcomes are also affected by luck and unforeseen events. A free market allows individuals to pursue jobs based on their skills without government interference. Striving for equal wealth could restrict freedom and fail to recognize individual differences, making enforced equality unrealistic.

‘EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY’

Equality of opportunity aims for everyone to have the same chances in life, regardless of their background or external circumstances. While many support this idea within a free market system, achieving it fully is complex. The government could help provide equal access to education and jobs, but creating real equality would require controlling all factors affecting individuals' lives. This would lead to constant demands for further adjustments, making the goal of complete equality unrealistic and potentially harmful.

‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’ AND FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW

Social justice means rewarding people based on their contributions to society, which requires authority to set tasks and rewards. However, this control restricts individual freedom and choice, which is essential in a market system. Simply changing rules won't achieve fair distribution of benefits in a society. Distributive justice can conflict with individual rights because laws meant to protect freedom can often restrict it instead. A free society can provide a safety net, like minimum income, while allowing the market to function, acknowledging that some inequalities are natural and should not lead to unfairly limiting others' opportunities.

THE SPATIAL RANGE OF ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’

The concept of 'social justice' originates from personal moral feelings within small groups, where people feel a duty to help those they know. In larger societies, these connections fade, making it harder to define social justice for strangers or foreigners. A liberal society aims for fairness but may simplify obligations to others. This can lead to challenges in advocating for justice beyond one's immediate community and may overlook the complexities of international relationships. Balancing personal moral obligations with broader principles of justice is a key challenge in an increasingly connected world.

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DISTASTEFUL JOBS

Compensation for unpleasant jobs often raises claims of social justice, but there are no clear standards to fairly distribute rewards in a market system. Unpleasant jobs tend to be poorly paid, which many argue is unjust. However, in a market where individuals sell services based on value, the sacrifice of a worker doesn't determine pay. Those with fewer valuable skills may earn more in unpleasant jobs, while those able to work in better positions face no obligation to share their earnings. Unjust conditions cannot be assumed simply based on local job opportunities.

THE RESENTMENT OF THE LOSS OF ACCUSTOMED POSITIONS

Social justice often seeks to protect individuals from losing their familiar financial positions, leading to feelings of resentment when unexpected changes occur. Many believe they have a right to their income based on hard work; however, this perspective can be misleading. The market requires adjustments that may cause hardship for some, but these changes can benefit society overall. Demanding protection for established incomes can limit opportunities for others, favor powerful groups, and conflict with broader societal interests, questioning the fairness of these calls for social justice.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of "social justice" is criticized for lacking clear meaning in a society that values individual freedom. It is often misused to promote specific interests without just reasoning, which can confuse moral values. Some thinkers even dismiss the idea of justice altogether, threatening the moral foundations of society. Wealth creation through wise investment is contrasted with resentment toward the wealthy, which can be harmful. The pursuit of "social justice" may undermine personal accountability and freedom by suggesting that political power should control wealth distribution, complicating discussions about actual justice.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 9: JUSTICE AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The idea of justice has changed to include society’s duty to provide for individuals, but this doesn't connect well to traditional justice or work in a free society. Rights come from rules about how people should act, which need someone responsible to uphold them. For example, parents must care for their children. The government gives political rights but isn’t required to meet all personal needs. New "social and economic rights" claim everyone is entitled to benefits without clear responsibility for who provides them, making enforcement hard. This focus on organization overlooks that individual actions and responsibilities are key to building a better society.

10 THE MARKET ORDER OR CATALLAXY

THE NATURE OF THE MARKET ORDER

The market order is a complex system that allows individuals to achieve greater access to goods and services than they could on their own. Unlike a strictly organized economy, which follows a single plan and purpose, the market is made up of numerous interlinked economies, each with its own goals. This diversity leads to effective coordination but also causes some expectations to be disappointed. The term "catallaxy" is proposed to describe this market order, emphasizing the spontaneous cooperation among individual economies under legal principles.

A FREE SOCIETY IS A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY WITHOUT A COMMON HIERARCHY OF PARTICULAR ENDS

A free society allows many different goals without forcing everyone to have the same aims. This variety helps people have individual freedom and work together peacefully, even if their goals are different. Through trading, individuals meet their own needs without needing to agree on why they are trading. Some people think not having common goals is a problem, but this actually helps people with different aims live together happily. It shows that having different interests can help the society grow and improve without needing everyone to agree on specific goals.

THOUGH NOT A SINGLE ECONOMY, THE GREAT SOCIETY IS STILL HELD TOGETHER MAINLY BY WHAT VULGARLY ARE CALLED ECONOMIC RELATIONS

The Great Society consists of diverse parts, but it is mainly united by economic relationships. The market allows individuals with different goals to collaborate peacefully, using shared resources to achieve their aims. This economic connection aids in benefiting from the knowledge and experiences of others across the globe. Despite advances in transportation and communication, these economic ties are crucial. Economists emphasize how the market balances various goals and helps distribute resources, creating opportunities through cooperation without ranking the importance of different needs.

THE AIM OF POLICY IN A SOCIETY OF FREE MEN CANNOT BE A MAXIMUM OF FOREKNOWN RESULTS BUT ONLY AN ABSTRACT ORDER

In a free society, policy should focus on creating an abstract order rather than aiming for specific outcomes. This means that policies should not judge value based on current demands, as this can lead to circular reasoning. Instead, the goal should be to improve everyone's chances of achieving their unknown goals by enforcing fair rules for all. The aim is not to optimize particular results but to ensure a flexible framework that can adapt to various circumstances, allowing individuals to pursue their purposes effectively over time.

THE GAME OF CATALLAXY

The market system, likened to the game of catallaxy, generates wealth instead of merely redistributing it. Participants adjust to prices, which guide resource allocation based on demand. Producers don’t need specific knowledge about consumers; they respond to price signals that indicate what is needed. Competition encourages innovation and efficiency, allowing those with relevant information to improve production. Wealth distribution in this system doesn’t require moral justification, and overall well-being is maximized as individuals pursue their interests freely. This system leads to effective use of resources within market constraints.

IN JUDGING THE ADAPTATIONS TO CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES COMPARISONS OF THE NEW WITH THE FORMER POSITION ARE IRRELEVANT

When analyzing changes in market conditions, comparing the current situation to the past is not useful. In direct trade, benefits were clear to both sides, but modern exchanges involve more complexity. Often, one person serves one group while receiving from another, leaving some excluded parties potentially worse off. While these changes can harm specific groups, they also create better opportunities that can benefit society overall. It's vital to focus on long-term benefits for everyone through inclusive policies, even when those benefits seem uneven or uncertain.

RULES OF JUST CONDUCT PROTECT ONLY MATERIAL DOMAINS AND NOT MARKET VALUES

Rules of just conduct focus on what people must not do rather than guaranteeing the market value of their products or services. These rules establish what belongs to whom but do not dictate their worth or benefits. They help reduce uncertainty and inform decisions about ownership and exchange but do not eliminate risks associated with market dynamics. While those who already possess resources may benefit more, this system encourages individuals to invest in future opportunities and improve their ability to provide services, creating ongoing growth and development.

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF EXPECTATIONS IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY A DISAPPOINTMENT OF SOME EXPECTATIONS

The law can protect what people own but cannot promise specific prices for goods and services. While the law tries to reduce some uncertainties, it cannot eliminate all of them because individuals must make their own choices based on their knowledge. People learn from mistakes and adjust their expectations over time. Some think it is unfair for individuals to face the risks of unexpected changes alone, but fairness relies on encouraging everyone to use their skills to predict these changes as best as they can.

ABSTRACT RULES OF JUST CONDUCT CAN DETERMINE ONLY CHANCES AND NOT PARTICULAR RESULTS

Abstract rules of just conduct create opportunities for everyone but do not guarantee specific outcomes. Success depends on individual skills and outside factors, even in fair systems. The justice system should ensure fair rules for all rather than equal results. In competitions, outcomes can be influenced by skill and chance, making it hard to judge fairness. Disappointments can arise in a free society, but these should not lead to interventions, as varying results are part of shared experiences influenced by chance.

SPECIFIC COMMANDS (‘INTERFERENCE’) IN A CATALLAXY CREATE DISORDER AND CAN NEVER BE JUST

Specific commands, known as interference, create disorder and are inherently unjust because they force individuals to act in ways not required of others. Unlike general rules that promote fairness and the coexistence of diverse goals, interference targets specific outcomes. It disrupts the natural order by preventing individuals from making their own choices based on their circumstances. This leads to unequal benefits, benefiting some while harming others, without a justifiable reason that applies to everyone. The fair use of coercion should only uphold universal rules that apply to all.

THE AIM OF LAW SHOULD BE TO IMPROVE EQUALLY THE CHANCES OF ALL

The main goal of law should be to improve the chances of success for everyone, regardless of their background. Laws can create rules that offer opportunities but do not guarantee equal success for all. Individual circumstances, efforts, and historical influences also affect success. The law cannot completely equalize chances due to factors beyond its control, such as family background and personal traits. While addressing past injustices is important, targeted legal efforts are often less effective than broad economic growth in helping those with lower incomes.

THE GOOD SOCIETY IS ONE IN WHICH THE CHANCES OF ANYONE SELECTED AT RANDOM ARE LIKELY TO BE AS GREAT AS POSSIBLE

A good society is one where everyone has equal chances, regardless of their background. People would want a society where they would be comfortable placing their children if their roles were decided by chance. Most individuals would not prefer a strictly equal society, however, as they might favor a life similar to the aristocracy if they could guarantee their position. Yet, if their status was random, they would likely choose a society that provides better opportunities for most people instead of a few privileged classes.

11 THE DISCIPLINE OF ABSTRACT RULES AND THE EMOTIONS OF THE TRIBAL SOCIETY

THE PURSUIT OF UNATTAINABLE GOALS MAY PREVENT THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE POSSIBLE

Chasing impossible goals, like "social justice," can stop us from reaching real ones. Aiming for these high ideals might seem safe, but it often leads to bad results and makes us give up practical goals. Right now, society is struggling between two different ideas of what is right, which is pulling us back to a tribal mindset after hoping for a more open society. History shows that many supporters of totalitarian governments were driven by good intentions, showing that tribal feelings are still very influential today.

THE CAUSES OF THE REVIVAL OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL THINKING OF THE TRIBE

Recently, there has been a rise in organizational thinking because many people now work in large organizations and only see things within those groups. In the past, people were more familiar with the market, seeing it as a network of family units involved in trade. Additionally, the success of creating new rules for organizations has led people to forget that the broader social order relies on older rules that were developed over time, not specifically designed for a purpose.

THE IMMORAL CONSEQUENCES OF MORALLY INSPIRED EFFORTS

The idea of "social justice" has weakened traditional justice, making people more subject to authority rather than individual rights. This can lead to totalitarianism, which pretends to be morally good. The values of small, close groups are often very different from what is needed for a large, diverse society, making it hard to have both. Capitalism, despite its flaws, allows people to work together for mutual benefit without needing common goals, while socialism forces everyone to follow the same goals, ignoring the unique knowledge and dreams of individuals.

IN THE GREAT SOCIETY ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’ BECOMES A DISRUPTIVE FORCE

Social justice can create conflict within a society by sparking competition between different groups fighting for their rights and entitlements. This pursuit often leads to strong beliefs about what each group deserves, resulting in division instead of unity. Claims of justice may serve as a cover for specific interests to push their agendas, rather than establishing universal rules for fairness. As groups prioritize their own interests, they can disrupt overall societal balance, making the concept of justice subjective and potentially harming collective harmony.

FROM THE CARE OF THE MOST UNFORTUNATE TO THE PROTECTION OF VESTED INTERESTS

The concept of "social justice" originally aimed to eliminate poverty and ensure everyone could meet basic needs. While absolute poverty has decreased in advanced countries, efforts to achieve social justice can complicate the fight against poverty, especially in areas still struggling with it. Over time, the focus has shifted from helping the most disadvantaged to protecting various groups’ interests, leading to government support favoring organized groups. This creates unfair advantages and undermines true fairness, as support often goes to those who can influence political decisions rather than to those in need.

ATTEMPTS TO ‘CORRECT’ THE ORDER OF THE MARKET LEAD TO ITS DESTRUCTION

The idea is that trying to fix the market's outcomes can lead to its breakdown. While some believe we should adjust the market to address serious unfairness, real justice can't be achieved by treating different groups differently. If income distributions aren't determined by a central authority, then no distribution can be seen as truly fair. Any attempt to correct one group's situation will lead to demands for similar treatment by others. A fair system requires consistently applying the same principles to everyone, not just selectively helping certain groups.

THE REVOLT AGAINST THE DISCIPLINE OF ABSTRACT RULES

The tension between personal loyalty from tribal societies and the need for impartial justice in larger communities poses challenges in the Great Society. The push for universal justice clashes with emotional ties to specific groups, as people often see concrete goals as more important than abstract rules. This conflict leads to a demand for social justice, which reflects a desire to prioritize group interests over universal principles. A peaceful society can emerge only when individuals follow rules that apply to everyone, rather than pursuing their own specific goals, which can lead to conflicts.

THE MORALS OF THE OPEN AND OF THE CLOSED SOCIETY

The shift from a closed society to an open society with a market economy brings significant moral changes. In an open society, producers focus on profit rather than individual needs, which fosters a new moral outlook based on general rules instead of specific goals. This approach prioritizes efficient production over direct assistance to the poor, suggesting that personal ambition can benefit society. However, this contrasts with tribal societies' instinctual morals and can lead to feelings of emptiness. The challenge lies in balancing emotional needs with the rational rules of an open society.

THE OLD CONFLICT BETWEEN LOYALTY AND JUSTICE

The ongoing conflict between loyalty to specific groups and the concept of universal justice has been present throughout history. Loyalty to groups such as class, clan, or religion often hinders broad applications of just conduct. While there has been progress towards an Open Society that supports universal justice, current moral views have not fully embraced this change. Although rules for personal relationships are still vital, they should not enforce restrictions in a free society. Instead, individuals should freely move between groups, following the rules they accept.

THE SMALL GROUP IN THE OPEN SOCIETY

In an open society, the rules that guide our behavior are often more abstract compared to the personal connections we value in smaller groups. This shift requires people to understand and accept these abstract rules without blaming others for problems. While many feel sad about losing the closeness of small groups, the larger society needs to avoid enforcing specific moral emotions tied to those groups. Instead, it must focus on preventing harm and allow individuals to choose their companions freely, promoting cooperation without coercion based on common goals.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

Voluntary associations are crucial in a free society because they allow individuals to work together without coercion. The focus should be on promoting these organizations, which serve both personal interests and public needs, rather than having the government manage everything. When governments control all social needs, it can reduce citizen participation and creativity. Many people are moving away from public life because they feel overshadowed by government actions. A healthy society thrives on numerous voluntary groups that encourage collaboration and shared values across borders.

Volume 3 THE POLITICAL ORDER OF A FREE PEOPLE

12 MAJORITY OPINION AND CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY

THE PROGRESSIVE DISILLUSIONMENT ABOUT DEMOCRACY

Many people think that modern governments act according to public wishes, but often, the results don’t match what people really want. Society has accepted a democracy where the majority makes choices, ignoring the needs of everyone. There is increasing concern about how democracy functions and the potential negative effects it can have. Originally, democracies were meant to protect individual freedoms, but they can shift toward majority rule that overlooks laws. This started with the British Parliament claiming unlimited power, raising doubts about the effectiveness of constitutions today.

UNLIMITED POWER: THE FATAL DEFECT OF THE PREVAILING FORM OF DEMOCRACY

Democracy often wrongly believes that just having procedures is enough to limit government power. When elected representatives focus on getting majority support, they might favor certain groups instead of following general moral rules. This can create a situation where the representative assembly has unlimited power, which isn't good because it can disregard what the people really want. Without the rule of law to guide them, democratic systems can slide into totalitarianism or dictatorship. Real democracy is based on values that are higher than just the system of making decisions.

THE TRUE CONTENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL

There is growing worry about the declining respect for democracy, which is often misunderstood as simply meaning equality. Democracy is mainly a way to make government decisions peacefully and avoid tyranny. However, there is a risk that the majority's will could lead to oppression if it is not checked by principles of justice. People need to understand that just because a majority agrees on something, it doesn't mean it's fair or right. True justice must be based on universal rules that apply to everyone, ensuring democracy protects against misuse of power.

THE WEAKNESS OF AN ELECTIVE ASSEMBLY WITH UNLIMITED POWERS

Votes in an elective assembly can mean different things depending on whether they are about rules for everyone or benefits for certain groups. When representatives seek votes by offering special benefits, they often ignore how these actions affect others. This can result in unfair laws that reflect political needs instead of fairness. Influential groups can pressure decision-makers, making it appear that the majority supports these benefits. As more groups demand similar treatment, the idea of social justice becomes more complicated, as benefits are given based on group power rather than true justice.

COALITIONS OF ORGANIZED INTERESTS AND THE APPARATUS OF PARA-GOVERNMENT

In democratic systems, organized interest groups often hold more power than individual voters, leading political parties to function as coalitions of these groups. This focus on political power results in resource distribution based on deal-making rather than fairness. To gain majority support, parties frequently compromise their goals, which can leave voters feeling dissatisfied. The government's role becomes balancing various interests, risking perceptions of corruption. To ensure fairness in democracy, there needs to be clear principles guiding government actions to prevent it from serving only organized interests.

AGREEMENT ON GENERAL RULES AND ON PARTICULAR MEASURES

In a complex society, individuals lack complete understanding of governmental decisions, which can lead to conflicts over preferences. For democracy to function smoothly, people need to agree on general rules rather than specific details. True agreement exists on broad principles, as detailed measures require widespread comprehension. Without following established rules, conflicts between desired outcomes and guiding principles will occur. While it may seem easier to agree on specifics, true consensus relies on identifying and agreeing on common principles to resolve disputes.

13 THE DIVISION OF DEMOCRATIC POWERS

THE LOSS OF THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF A LEGISLATURE

The original understanding of legislatures as a check on power has changed, leading to the belief that elected assemblies can act without restrictions. During the English Civil War, Parliament abused its power, demonstrating that legislatures could be as oppressive as kings. Thinkers like John Locke and authors of Cato's Letters argued that laws should be general and fair, made without self-interest. Even late in the 18th century, some believed that separating legislative and judicial powers was essential to create unbiased laws. Despite this, the idea of parliamentary sovereignty still led to issues, as seen in the American colonies' break from Britain.

EXISTING REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN SHAPED BY THE NEEDS OF GOVERNMENT, NOT OF LEGISLATION

Democratic governments today focus more on what the government needs than on making laws. Although they are called 'legislatures,' these groups mainly manage government actions instead of creating laws for everyone. This has caused confusion, making people think that everything these groups decide is a law. The original idea was for legislatures to make rules for citizens, but now they mostly support the government and work in groups, which weakens the separation of powers. This means they blur the line between creating laws and running the government.

BODIES WITH POWERS OF SPECIFIC DIRECTION ARE UNSUITED FOR LAW-MAKING

A representative body is crucial for a democratic government to reflect the people's wishes, but it is not effective at making laws. When this body also has government powers, it struggles to meet urgent needs and violates the principle of separation of powers. This can lead to a situation where laws change frequently based on majority decisions, rather than being stable and fair. A body that focuses only on specific actions tends to create laws that benefit the government instead of the public. The distinction between representing general interests and organized majorities has diminished, impacting governance.

THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING ‘LEGISLATURES’ DETERMINED BY THEIR GOVERNMENTAL TASKS

Modern legislatures are shaped more by their roles in government than by their duty to create laws. Legislators often try to impress voters, creating a conflict between pleasing constituents and acting responsibly. Elections tend to favor those offering benefits over those showing integrity. As a result, many focus on administrative tasks and rely on bureaucrats for lawmaking rather than understanding laws themselves. This shift prioritizes government control over individual rights, weakening the protection of those rights in democratic systems, especially on sensitive issues.

PARTY LEGISLATION LEADS TO THE DECAY OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

A political system that allows one group to hold too much power can hurt democracy and society. When a small group can demand special favors for their support, it leads to corruption and laws that do not represent what most people want. The current parliament often focuses on what is popular instead of what is best for everyone, leading to vote-buying, which misdefines democracy. A better system could involve randomly selecting citizens to improve laws, ensuring they truly reflect the people's interests.

THE CONSTRUCTIVISTIC SUPERSTITION OF SOVEREIGNTY

The concept of popular sovereignty suggests that the majority should control decision-making through their representatives. However, this idea incorrectly assumes that this power is unlimited. Instead, power originates from the shared beliefs of society, not from a single authority. Authority is supported by trust in leaders to maintain these common beliefs. Social order relies on agreed-upon rules, not on a ruler's whims. Historically, absolute sovereignty was rare and depended on public acceptance, making the belief in unlimited democratic authority misleading. Different democratic processes can lead to different results.

THE REQUISITE DIVISION OF THE POWERS OF REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES

Representative government should separate the powers of making laws and governing to avoid unchecked authority. When elected bodies combine these functions, they risk acting without proper guidelines, which can lead to arbitrary decisions, even if the representatives mean well. Constitutions aim to limit such actions, but they often fail to do so completely. Legislation should focus on long-term goals for the community, adapting to future needs. A three-tiered system is essential, distinguishing between constitutional matters, law improvements, and everyday governance to ensure justice and prevent power misuse.

DEMOCRACY OR DEMARCHY?

The meaning of "democracy" has shifted and is often misused, particularly by groups claiming to provide "people's democracies," which aren't true democracies. This leads to confusion about what democracy really entails. The debate extends to who should participate in democratic decisions, as not everyone who benefits from a service should have a say in its management. Effective governance in certain fields may require clear leadership rather than democratic input. To clarify these concepts and preserve democracy's core values, a new term like "demarchy" could be introduced, emphasizing justice along with majority rule.

14 THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

THE DOUBLE TASK OF GOVERNMENT

Government has two main roles in a free society: enforcing laws and protecting against outside threats, as well as providing services that the market cannot deliver effectively. It is important for the government to collect taxes to fund these services, especially when benefits can’t be restricted to only those who pay. However, the powers used for law enforcement should be kept separate from those used in service delivery. This separation helps people respect the law and understand that services are essential needs, not just a display of government authority.

COLLECTIVE GOODS

Market systems work well when producers can control who benefits from their goods and services. However, this control is limited for land use due to its effects on neighboring properties, often leading to issues like pollution. Some actions can have external effects, where individuals benefit or suffer without paying. Public goods, like public safety and infrastructure, are hard for the market to provide on its own. While compulsory funding can help distribute costs in larger groups, it is often more efficient to use market solutions when offering these services.

THE DELIMITATION OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Governments have the exclusive power to use force and provide services funded by taxes, but this doesn't mean that only they can offer these services. Private entities should also be allowed to provide services as needed. The public sector should not be seen as only government functions, but as resources the government can use. Funding should be collected fairly, without giving the government special advantages over private organizations. While regulations for government services are important, there must be clear guidelines for privately owned places that serve the public.

THE INDEPENDENT SECTOR

The public sector is not the only way to meet society's needs; there are other effective options. While the government can help fix market failures, it cannot always meet the needs of everyone, especially smaller groups. Some cultural and community needs might not get support from the government. Private charities and philanthropic efforts often play an important role in addressing these needs. Having an independent sector is important because it provides alternatives to government services and helps avoid problems that come from a government monopoly.

TAXATION AND THE SIZE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR

People have varying opinions about government services, but many agree on needing a fair return on their taxes. Taxation should influence the size of the public sector instead of individuals paying all service costs. Voters often support spending without understanding their share of costs, leading to greater spending than they actually want. Government spending has been steadily increasing, sometimes exceeding 50% of national income, which can ignore efficient resource use. Many citizens prefer lower taxes, suggesting current government spending may be higher than they realize or support.

SECURITY

The government must provide security from outside threats and internal problems. It needs strong powers to handle defense and international relations, especially during wars. Governments also help in responding to natural disasters that individuals cannot manage alone. They have a duty to support people who cannot take care of themselves due to illness, age, or disability, often by providing a guaranteed minimum income. However, connecting this support to income equality can cause issues like higher taxes and questions about who owns resources, which can conflict with a free society. It's important to find a balance between helping people and keeping a stable market and personal freedoms.

GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY OF SERVICES

Governments monopolize essential services like currency and postal services, mainly to increase their power rather than serve the public. This control can lead to risks, inefficiencies, and higher costs for citizens. For example, a single government-controlled currency can result in abuse of power and lack of accountability. Similarly, public monopolies in transportation and energy can waste resources and affect where people can afford to live. While government intervention is necessary when private investment is low, current processes to adjust spending are often ineffective. Competition could improve efficiency and resource management.

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION

Information and education are connected but have different reasons for being funded by the public. Many people may not know how helpful information and education can be, even though they are essential for understanding laws and participating in democracy. The government can provide information, but it shouldn't control it entirely. For education, especially for children, government support is necessary because kids can’t make informed choices. Vouchers for parents to choose schools and student loans for higher education are suggested ways to fund education without giving too much power to the government.

OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES

There are several important issues in government policy that need to be addressed. One key issue is ensuring the quality of goods and services through certification, which helps consumers make informed choices. Government regulations improve market safety, especially for food and professional qualifications. Another issue is expropriation, where the government takes private property for public use, which must be handled fairly. Additionally, privacy protection needs more government attention as populations grow. Lastly, local authorities may be more effective in addressing community needs compared to a central government. Balancing government roles with individual freedoms is a challenge.

15 GOVERNMENT POLICY AND THE MARKET

THE ADVANTAGES OF COMPETITION DO NOT DEPEND ON IT BEING ‘PERFECT’1

Competition in the market provides benefits independent of achieving "perfect" conditions. It helps allocate resources efficiently, similar to an ideal decision-maker, but perfect competition is rare and unrealistic. In reality, few companies may dominate a market, allowing them to set higher prices. Some firms can act like monopolies, controlling prices without producing at optimal levels. To assess competition, it's better to compare actual market outcomes with other options, focusing on improving efficiency rather than striving for an unattainable ideal. Competition can still enhance how well producers meet consumer needs.

COMPETITION AS A DISCOVERY PROCEDURE

Competition is an important way to find out who performs best in uncertain situations, like sports and markets. It encourages participants to improve and be challenged, which drives them to push harder. For competition to work, there should be a variety of skills among competitors, so everyone feels the need to keep up. It acts like a scientific experiment that uncovers unknown facts and abilities, showing that outcomes can’t be predicted accurately beforehand. Ultimately, competition helps reveal valuable knowledge in economics.

IF THE FACTUAL REQUIREMENTS OF ‘PERFECT’ COMPETITION ARE ABSENT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE FIRMS ACT ‘AS IF’ IT EXISTED

Firms cannot be expected to behave as if perfect competition exists when the necessary conditions are not met. In situations lacking perfect competition, producers often act in their self-interest, setting prices above marginal costs. Critics who believe firms should operate as if in perfect competition overlook the importance of self-interest in driving innovation and efficiency. Profits motivate firms to improve production methods and invest in new technologies, but forcing them to cut prices can discourage risk-taking. Market power may lead to monopolies, but if they arise from efficiency and do not block competition, they can benefit consumers. True competition should reward unique capabilities and advantages.

THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FREE MARKET

Competition in a free market leads to the production of goods that people want and can be sold at prices they prefer. It helps producers who can create goods most efficiently to succeed, resulting in lower prices and better quality for consumers. This system works best when competition is not restricted by government or private organizations. In functioning markets, finding new ways to serve customers is challenging, indicating that competition drives innovation. A strong commercial spirit emerges from open competition, which benefits society overall.

COMPETITION AND RATIONALITY

Competition plays a crucial role in improving our knowledge and skills by encouraging rational behavior. As people strive to succeed, they adopt rational methods, and others may imitate these behaviors. This environment allows new ideas to emerge, especially for entrepreneurs. However, if traditional beliefs hinder experimentation, competition and intellectual growth can be stifled. The focus should be on creating fair competition rather than controlling methods. While competition has some drawbacks, it often leads to better prices and quality for consumers, which may not be immediately appreciated.

SIZE, CONCENTRATION AND POWER

Concerns about large corporations often challenge liberal principles, but being large doesn't always mean a firm has harmful market power. Effective competition is key for a healthy market, and the ability to set prices doesn’t necessarily indicate negative dominance. The best firm size can vary with economic changes. Large companies may diversify, making industry lines less clear, and their power is often balanced by other large firms. Caution is needed when considering government restrictions on size, as they could unintentionally create monopolies and reduce competition, complicating the balance between growth and freedom.

THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF ECONOMIC POWER

Large corporations have significant power due to their size, leading to concerns about the political and moral implications of their influence. There are two types of power: control over resources and control over people. While larger companies can offer cheaper or more available products, their ability to control behavior increases mainly when they restrict access to essential services. There are worries about these companies' responsibilities to their communities and the danger of them gaining excessive power, potentially needing more government oversight. The key issue lies in protecting market competition, rather than merely criticizing large firms.

WHEN MONOPOLY BECOMES HARMFUL

Monopolies can be harmful when they keep their power even after the reasons for their dominance go away. They can set different prices for different customers, which helps them stay in control and limits choices for people. While some monopolies can provide better services, their power can also be misused to pressure customers or block competition. It is important to create rules to stop harmful discrimination while also recognizing that not all types of discrimination by monopolies are bad.

THE PROBLEM OF ANTI-MONOPOLY LEGISLATION

Anti-monopoly legislation seeks to promote fair competition but struggles with enforcement and effectiveness. One suggestion is to allow potential competitors to take action against monopolists for unfair treatment. There is also a concern about cartels, with laws like the Sherman Act discouraging anti-competitive agreements. A broad ban on all trade-restraining agreements could help clarify enforcement. However, exceptions can undermine these laws. Furthermore, governments often control some monopolies while promoting others, suggesting that reducing support for monopolistic practices could enhance market competition.

NOT INDIVIDUAL BUT GROUP SELFISHNESS IS THE CHIEF THREAT

The main danger to the market comes from organized groups rather than individual companies. Government backing has allowed these groups to limit individual actions that can challenge their power. It's not the size of companies that matters, but how they collaborate for their interests, which disrupts market functions. Organized groups, like labor unions, can undermine free society and the rule of law. This organization may also make it difficult for individual needs to be represented, as larger groups often act against the wider public interest. If all groups become fully organized, it could lead to economic stagnation.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF A POLITICAL DETERMINATION OF THE INCOMES OF THE DIFFERENT GROUPS

Political decisions on income distribution can negatively impact society by causing resistance from organized groups of producers. These groups may oppose necessary economic changes, leading to a rigid market that struggles to adapt. Some countries attempt to control wages and incomes through policies, but these often fail and can worsen inflation and market issues. Historical examples, like the rigid wage system in Britain, show the dangers of trying to set prices politically. To promote fairness, it's vital to establish rules that prevent powerful organizations from distorting the market.

ORGANIZABLE AND NON-ORGANIZABLE INTERESTS

The idea that all important interests will eventually organize themselves to balance each other is wrong. Influencing the government works only if it can help specific interests through its power. Studies show that most common interests do not form groups on their own unless the government helps them. This results in organized interests taking advantage of those that cannot organize, such as consumers and taxpayers. As a result, unorganized groups often face difficulties because of the strength of organized interests.

16 THE MISCARRIAGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL: A RECAPITULATION

THE MISCARRIAGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL

Many people are losing faith in democracy, which used to inspire them. This disillusionment arises not just from political abuses but from doubts about the core of democracy itself. While some remain silent about their concerns, there is a need to discuss these issues. The problem isn’t democracy itself, but rather how it has been implemented. It’s important to recognize that democracy is just a method of government, focusing on how decisions are made, not what the government's goals should be. Despite its flaws, democracy remains valuable and deserves to be defended.

A ‘BARGAINING’ DEMOCRACY

Many people are disappointed with how democracy works today because governments often focus on satisfying the needs of different special interest groups instead of the majority. Although some call this "mass-democracy," true democracy should reflect what most people want. Instead of serving the majority, governments must make deals to please many smaller groups, which makes it hard to follow the true principles of democracy. This results in a system where compromises are necessary, moving away from the idea of majority rule.

THE PLAYBALL OF GROUP INTERESTS

Limited democracy is important because if a democratic government has too much power, it can become weak by trying to meet the demands of different interest groups. For many years, the goal of constitutional government was to control all government powers to prevent unfair ruling. Important principles were created, like the separation of powers and the rule of law, to ensure that force is used only for the common good and fairly. However, these principles have been forgotten or weakened because people believe that only democracy is needed to keep power in check.

LAWS VERSUS DIRECTIONS

The founders of constitutionalism saw law as important for limiting government and protecting individual freedom. In the 19th century, law was defined as rules about how people should behave towards each other, setting boundaries for everyone. However, constitutional rules are about organizing government, not controlling behavior. When the power to make laws and give directions was given to the same groups, it allowed for unlimited government. This means that those in power can create laws that benefit certain interests instead of everyone, challenging the idea that democracy serves the public good.

LAWS AND ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT

Government has moved away from being bound by laws, which has diminished the meaning of law itself. The legislature is no longer focused on creating general rules; now, everything it decides is called law. This shift leads to arbitrary government, where decisions can be made without established principles. Even majority rule can become arbitrary if it lacks fairness. An unlimited Parliament risks undermining individual freedoms, as personal liberty depends on authority being guided by consistent principles that reflect the people's will.

FROM UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO ARBITRARINESS

Unlimited democracy can eventually lead to unfair use of power. At first, efforts to help the less fortunate seem fair, but treating people unequally for the sake of help opens the door to arbitrariness. The idea of "social justice" is used to justify these actions, but it is vague and allows governments to favor some groups over others. This creates a kind of legalized corruption. When governments focus on majority support for special measures, they risk ignoring fairness, making it important to limit their power to ensure equal treatment under the law.

SEPARATION OF POWERS TO PREVENT UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT

The separation of powers is essential to stop a government from becoming too powerful. This can be done by having two different elected assemblies. One assembly should represent what the people think is fair and just, while the other should decide on specific actions based on the rules set by the first. Although current parliaments have been organized around political parties, many political thinkers from the past were skeptical about this approach, believing that parliaments are not really good at making laws.

17 A MODEL CONSTITUTION

THE WRONG TURN TAKEN BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS

The creation of representative institutions in the United States has faced many issues. The goal was to limit government power by separating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, this hasn’t worked well because the legislature makes laws and also directs government actions, leading to confusion and conflicts between branches. Instead of just splitting power among elected groups, it might be better to separate roles by their functions. This could help clarify responsibilities and improve the understanding of laws, which is currently vague.

THE VALUE OF A MODEL OF AN IDEAL CONSTITUTION

An ideal constitution should separate powers between two independent governing bodies. Many countries do not have a strong constitutional tradition, which makes it hard to support democracy without the right beliefs and customs. To help new democracies work well, these unwritten traditions should be included in their written constitutions. Also, as efforts grow for international law and supranational institutions, these groups should focus on stopping harmful actions by national governments without having too much power over them.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES

A constitution should allow individuals to be restricted only by established rules that protect everyone's rights, except in emergencies. These rules should only be changed by a Legislative Assembly, which creates universal laws rather than laws for individuals. The constitution must outline what counts as law for future situations. The focus is on limiting government power over individuals, ensuring freedom of speech and religion without an exhaustive list of rights. The aim is to prevent arbitrary government actions while allowing necessary restrictions to maintain societal order.

THE TWO REPRESENTATIVE BODIES WITH DISTINCTIVE FUNCTIONS

Having two separate groups in government, each with its own responsibilities, is an important idea for ensuring good governance. One group, the legislative assembly, makes laws, while the other, the governmental assembly, carries them out. These groups need different members to function properly; otherwise, the legislative assembly might simply support the governmental assembly. Regular elections are crucial for keeping representatives accountable, but longer terms for legislative members could enhance independence. Overall, this structure aims for fair and efficient governance while allowing for checks and balances.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON REPRESENTATION BY AGE GROUPS

The proposed model for representation by age groups in the Legislative Assembly aims to strengthen democratic institutions. By forming clubs for each age class, individuals can connect and prepare for future public responsibilities. These clubs would promote social interaction across different backgrounds and provide education on public matters and parliamentary processes. They would also allow younger members to express their opinions and discuss political issues together. The leadership within these clubs would help identify strong candidates for election, ensuring trusted representatives for their age groups. Overall, the system is designed to enhance community cohesion and representation.

THE GOVERNMENTAL ASSEMBLY

The Governmental Assembly should be modeled after existing parliamentary bodies and could be elected periodically along party lines. Its main function would be overseen by an executive committee representing the majority. This assembly would follow rules set by the Legislative Assembly, ensuring it cannot issue orders unless allowed. There is a debate about whether government employees and pensioners should vote in this assembly due to potential conflicts of interest over resource allocation. Despite operating under specific laws, the government would maintain significant power in organizing its services and funding.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

There should be a clear difference between laws that govern how people should act, made by the Legislative Assembly, and rules for running the government set by the Governmental Assembly. A special Constitutional Court is needed to sort out any conflicts between these two assemblies and make sure decisions are fair and consistent. This court should have professional judges and former assembly members. It's important to keep judges independent and properly organize the judicial system while mainly letting the Legislative Assembly create laws about legal processes.

THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY

The Legislative Assembly's role is different from that of a body that creates or changes the Constitution. The Constitution sets out how powers are organized and limited but does not dictate how these powers should be used. Instead, the Legislative Assembly creates laws that define just conduct, while the executive government must follow both the Constitution and these laws. No single body holds absolute power; sovereignty is shared among these tiers. The Constitution aims for permanence, while laws must adapt to new challenges, and government administration focuses on immediate needs.

EMERGENCY POWERS

In a free society, government powers are usually limited, but they may need to be increased temporarily during emergencies like threats, rebellions, or disasters. Special emergency powers can help maintain safety and order. It is important to create clear rules for when these powers can be granted to prevent misuse. The Legislative Assembly should have the authority to declare emergencies and delegate powers, ensuring they can be revoked. Constitutions should also include rules for unexpected issues to allow for quick solutions while keeping power in check.

THE DIVISION OF FINANCIAL POWERS

The division of financial powers emphasizes that taxation is a coercive act that needs clear guidelines from the Legislative Assembly, while spending decisions are made by the Governmental Assembly. This separation promotes responsible financial decisions, as everyone would understand their share of costs. Current tax methods often disguise the true burden, making citizens unaware of how much they pay. A new approach to public finance is needed to prevent excessive government control over society’s income and ensure fairness in taxation without shifting burdens unjustly.

18 THE CONTAINMENT OF POWER AND THE DETHRONEMENT OF POLITICS

LIMITED AND UNLIMITED POWER

Limiting government power is essential for social order, as unchecked government can threaten individual freedom. Historically, founders aimed to restrict power but later believed that democratic control would prevent its abuse. However, elected officials often face pressure to serve special interests, leading to discrimination and coercion, which harms freedom. The ideal solution is to have government authority bound by long-term rules that cannot be easily changed. This approach would allow individuals the freedom to pursue their goals while maintaining a society based on freedom and moral responsibility.

PEACE, FREEDOM AND JUSTICE: THE THREE GREAT NEGATIVES

A government in a free society primarily works to prevent harm rather than to achieve specific goals. It should create general rules that protect people's rights, allowing individuals to pursue their own interests without interference. The ideals of peace, freedom, and justice are crucial for a good society and can only exist when the government safeguards them from conflict. Peace arises from the absence of conflict, and a government’s role is to maintain order and protect individual rights without overstepping its authority.

CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION

Centralization in government has been strong because of the need for defense against war. Now, since wars are less likely in certain parts of the world, there is a chance to decentralize power and rely less on the national government. Changes in government structures are needed to protect individual freedom, which are often better suited for a decentralized federal system. This would allow local governments to handle more services with rules from a higher authority. Additionally, richer regions should not have to support poorer ones just for political reasons, and this issue is also seen internationally, where wealthier countries sometimes invest in failing projects in developing nations.

THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY VERSUS THE RULE OF LAWS APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY

Democracy aims to protect values like peace, justice, and liberty, but it is increasingly influenced by special interest groups. Politicians often prioritize these groups over the public's opinion to maintain their power, which undermines true democracy. This majority rule can lead to oppression if representatives don’t truly represent everyone. For democracy to work well, government power should be limited and based on universal laws that everyone agrees on. Ultimately, authority should come from the collective beliefs of citizens to ensure order and freedom.

MORAL CONFUSION AND THE DECAY OF LANGUAGE

The meanings of important political terms like "liberty," "justice," and "democracy" have changed a lot in the last hundred years, creating confusion. People are reluctant to use these words because they no longer hold their original meanings. This change is influenced by social philosophers and activists who reshape these terms to fit their goals, which can mislead others. As a result, discussions about social policy and politics become unclear, reflecting a trend of intellectual dishonesty in how language is used.

DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURE AND EGALITARIAN OBJECTIVES

Democracy has changed over time, leading to misunderstandings about its purpose. People often focus on getting specific results instead of ensuring a fair decision-making process. The true value of democracy is in protecting against power abuse and allowing peaceful government changes. However, when democracy is unchecked, it can limit personal freedoms and increase government control. Majorities may cater to special interest groups instead of the public good, undermining true democratic values and raising concerns about democracy's effectiveness and legitimacy in the future.

‘STATE’ AND ‘SOCIETY’

In a democracy, the government's role is to protect individual rights and allow people to pursue their interests freely. Coercion is only acceptable when necessary to maintain this system, and individuals should be compensated for wrongful coercion. The terms 'state' and 'society' are often mixed up. The state is a structured organization that supports society but does not define it. Society emerges from voluntary relationships among individuals, and its development is spontaneous, driven by creativity and innovation rather than government control.

A GAME ACCORDING TO RULES CAN NEVER KNOW JUSTICE OF TREATMENT

Playing a game with rules promotes fairness and improves outcomes, even if some individuals may fare worse than they could otherwise. Classical liberalism advocates for eliminating governmental power over market incomes and encourages a basic income for those unable to earn enough. Governments should not interfere in the market but ensure everyone is treated equally under the law. The prices in the market serve as signals for what people should do rather than rewards for their efforts. Ultimately, true fairness comes from equal treatment, with the outcome influenced by unpredictable circumstances.

THE PARA-GOVERNMENT OF ORGANIZED INTERESTS AND THE HYPERTROPHY OF GOVERNMENT

Today’s governments have serious problems that many people think are just part of democracy. However, these issues often come from a lack of limits on democracy. Organized interest groups can pressure the government to act in ways that aren’t good for everyone, just to benefit a few. Trade unions, which have special rights, can harm other workers and disrupt fair wages, leading to economic trouble. Moreover, as government becomes more complicated, officials start relying heavily on bureaucracies, making it hard for true democratic control over decision-making.

UNLIMITED DEMOCRACY AND CENTRALIZATION

Unlimited democracy has increased the power of the central government, taking over many jobs that local governments used to handle. Except for Switzerland, this trend is seen in most places, where central government is seen as the main governing body, providing services and making laws from one main location. When local plans fail, central planners often argue for larger solutions, which boosts central control. The central government has stronger legislative powers than local ones, making it easier to respond to demands by moving decisions to a higher authority, leading to more centralization of government power.

THE DEVOLUTION OF INTERNAL POLICY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT14

When central governments hold too much power, local communities can feel disconnected and impersonal. If more responsibilities were given to local governments, they could provide better services and compete to attract residents by offering benefits. This change would encourage people to get involved in their local affairs and help rebuild a sense of community. It would also allow individuals to have a say in issues that matter to them, making them feel more valued instead of just part of a large, impersonal system.

THE ABOLITION OF THE GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY OF SERVICES

The central government should not have the only power to provide services like education, transport, utilities, and social insurance. Without a government monopoly, competition can improve service quality and prevent abuse. Government control of broadcasting can harm political freedom, similar to limiting the press. It is also important to change the government's monopoly on money to create a truly free economy. Allowing private options for money will give people better choices, and this right should be included in the constitution to protect individual freedoms.

THE DETHRONEMENT OF POLITICS

Politics has become complicated and expensive, leading to a lack of public trust. People see it as a flawed system that often prioritizes short-term interests over long-term benefits for society. This creates conflicts over resources, making good governance hard. Laws should focus on fairness and opportunity rather than wealth redistribution, as competition for benefits can threaten democracy. Balancing capitalism and socialism is challenging, and maintaining individual freedom is essential for progress. The aim is to limit government power while allowing natural societal growth.

EPILOGUE* THE THREE SOURCES OF HUMAN VALUES

THE ERRORS OF SOCIOBIOLOGY

Sociobiology makes a mistake in understanding human values by only recognizing two types: primary values from our genes and secondary values from reasoning. This ignores other important values influenced by culture, which has developed over a longer time than biological changes. Some biologists concentrate on genetics and overlook how quickly culture can change and shape our lives. Society has formed through competition between institutions rather than through careful planning. Culture consists of learned traditions that help guide our behavior, showing that civilization has grown by managing our natural instincts with established customs.

THE PROCESS OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION

Cultural evolution develops alongside human reasoning, challenging the idea that culture is purely genetic or designed. It has evolved through advantageous practices that often start by chance and are influenced by imitation, as seen in animals. While genetic evolution is slow, cultural evolution can happen rapidly due to learned behaviors. Our customs and rules that guide behavior evolved before recorded history, with the ability to learn from others playing a crucial role. This process indicates that our minds and culture shape each other.

THE EVOLUTION OF SELF-MAINTAINING COMPLEX STRUCTURES

Complex structures, like societies and brains, develop through a process called selective evolution and adapt to their surroundings. These structures stay stable when they respond to changes, thanks to the regular actions of their individual parts. This understanding shows that we can't just use simple cause-and-effect thinking to explain how these systems work. Instead, we need to consider how they interact as a whole. Traditional methods that focus on numbers are not very helpful in explaining these self-maintaining systems, which depend on continuous adaptation rather than fixed data.

THE STRATIFICATION OF RULES OF CONDUCT36

Rules of conduct have evolved, reflecting how cultures have changed over time. As societies grew from small groups to larger communities, people moved from acting on natural instincts to following learned rules. While some view natural instincts as good, these instincts can be harmful in a complex society. Civilizations need discipline to manage these instincts. Morals in open societies guide behavior rather than fulfilling emotions, and cultural advancement often involved replacing old instincts with new rules to promote cooperation among diverse individuals.

CUSTOMARY RULES AND ECONOMIC ORDER

Economic orders change when rules about behavior are adjusted, leading to more personal freedom and protections for individuals. Practices like bartering, private property, and lending money, once against old customs, became important for society’s growth. In early societies, sharing resources was common, but to create a market economy, this had to change, allowing people to specialize in specific tasks. Most rely on market signals instead of personal knowledge. Important rules like language and morals developed over time and are necessary for complex societies, even if they don’t always make individuals happy.

THE DISCIPLINE OF FREEDOM

Human beings did not originally develop in freedom; they were bound to small groups for survival. Freedom emerged with the advancement of civilization, which created rules that protect individuals from the unpredictable behavior of others. This transformation involved shifting from close-knit communities to larger, more complex societies governed by abstract rules rather than shared physical goals. As society evolved, people had to learn new rules that sometimes conflicted with their instincts. Economic systems and market principles developed unintentionally through the shared experiences of independent individuals focused on future success and wealth, rather than a common good.

THE RE-EMERGENCE OF SUPPRESSED PRIMORDIAL INSTINCTS

Many individuals in Western society feel confused and treat the market economy as unfair, leading to emotions demanding fairness. Some thinkers suggest revisiting traditional values or creating new rules that fit human instincts. Historically, philosophers have criticized the economic system while benefiting from it, overlooking how pricing and rewards help people assist others. Moral evolution is crucial for a free society, and true morality arises from cultural change, not just instinct. Society thrives on learned rules, and progress involves understanding complex moral systems rather than simply following emotions.

EVOLUTION, TRADITION AND PROGRESS

Evolution is necessary for progress, but they are not the same thing. Traditional evolution helps create civilization, although it often brings challenges that people may not like. Economic disciplines, which some people criticize, are essential for a free society and require individuals to be responsible for their actions. Social usefulness is not distributed fairly, and trying to force it would harm individual knowledge and a pluralistic society. True progress cannot be controlled precisely, and favorable conditions must be created instead. Moral traditions, rather than strict intellectual designs, have historically driven progress, allowing new and better ideas to emerge.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MORALS TO SERVE OLD INSTINCTS: MARX

Socialists, like Karl Marx, try to create new moral ideas based on human instincts, but they often miss how individual actions help organize society. Marx thought capitalism was chaotic because he believed prices only reflected past labor instead of guiding current choices. He viewed egalitarianism, the belief in equal treatment for everyone, as harmful since it ignores individual efforts and achievements. This can lower motivation and lead to disorder. Maintaining social order requires recognizing different moral behaviors and contributions, as unique talents are important for society’s growth.

THE DESTRUCTION OF INDISPENSABLE VALUES BY SCIENTIFIC ERROR: FREUD

There is growing worry about how mistakes in science, especially in psychology, philosophy, and sociology, are hurting important values in society. Many of these mistakes come from ideas that say moral values don’t really matter and are just based on personal interests. This view ignores the role of emotions influenced by biology and culture, which are important for a strong society. Freud's teachings encourage people to follow their natural instincts instead of cultural rules, which may weaken traditional morals. Some scholars are starting to question these ideas and promote valuing cultural traditions.

THE TABLES TURNED

Civilization's survival depends on renouncing past errors, especially the dominating ideas of the twentieth century linked to Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. These ideas, such as planned economies and permissive education, are seen as superstitions arising from overestimating science's capabilities in complex areas. The Enlightenment aimed to enhance human reason, yet it may have overlooked the value of traditions that contribute to rational thought. Ultimately, human reason leads us into the unknown, suggesting that this moment could be a new beginning rather than an ending.