The Naturally Emerging Order

This week for the Koch Scholars program, we have been directed to read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which presents a number of truly revolutionary ideas. First, Smith rejects the predominate Mercantillist philosophies of his day. And second, he argues that mankind creates a natural social order, regardless of interference from the state. While such an idea may not seem particularly groundbreaking, in reality it is.


But first, here is my post from Utah State University's Koch Scholars Blog:

In the past, Adam Smith’s economic theories have proven to be truly revolutionary, not to mention they are particularly relevant today.

Smith’s Wealth of Nations challenged the overbearing Mercantillist philosophy of that day, and going even further, completely diminished the role of government in a healthy economy. According to Smith, human beings naturally develop social orders and markets independent of government (quite a foreign concept considering the historical context). Such a system, argued Smith, was a “naturally emerging order,” one which was allowed to grow and develop without the interference of a third-party.

Smith is correct in his observation that human beings are prone to form and nurture economic relationships with one another regardless of outside direction; such relationships are common and natural. Man’s industry and self-interest compels him to not only compete, but to also form cooperative relationships with his peers. Such relationships contribute to a general social order, where the interests of the individuals and the interests of the collective enjoy a balance.

The naturally emerging order is most certainly preferable to the directed order, which relies upon the authority of a central body to ensure the happiness and well-being of the community. It should be mentioned that not all directed orders are created equal, with some being preferable to others. Nevertheless, I would argue that the most preferable directed orders are those which respect the natural, social relationships of individuals.

A naturally emerging order honors the interests of both the community and the individual. In a naturally emerging order, society is allowed to mature and develop organically, with competition encouraging progress individually and collectively, and cooperation fostering peace and securing the best interests of the community. Finally, with a natural tolerance of economic liberty, true political freedoms are more likely to be present in such a society.

Of course, my post consists of a few presented ideas, and doesn't do much to explain Smith's theories in any depth. Nevertheless, I think it's important to compare the naturally emerging order to that of the directed.

Just think how dependent human beings are upon the state, whether here or abroad. How much of this dependency is the result of a perception that the state is better suited to ensure the well-being of both the individual and the collective?

So often, we see a social problem and automatically, we call upon the powers of a central authority to solve that problem. And frequently, we become satisfied with the government merely addressing the issue, regardless of the outcome.

Perhaps we all should consider how things would turn out without the reliance on a central authority. Mankind naturally interacts with one another, forming relationships laden with expectations and conditions. Without the involvement of a third-party, a community shaped by such relationships, has the ability to regulate and govern itself through a balance between self-interest and cooperation. A modern example of such a state can be seen on the internet, which largely enjoys an absence of a major, central authority. Yet through human relationships, the internet is able to regulate itself and develop according to the needs, wants, and desires of individuals and groups.

In no way do I advocate anarchy, yet I vocally question our reliance on a government which is too often incapable of serving our interests as individuals and a society.