Talk:Spontaneous order/Archive 1

Accounting and the State
If you're wondering why I removed a paragraph about anarcho-capitalism that you recently inserted, Christofurio, the reason is that it provided no information that wasn't already covered by the larger paragraph on anarchism. Issues regarding the state are one of the few things on which there is agreement between anarchists and the seriously misnamed "anarcho-capitalists". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You removed the explanation of why the dispute over an accounting issue is relevant to the broader subject of the article. If you thought it irrelevant, you would have been better off deleting the whole new section. Since you appear to think it relevant, you should allow for a specific statement of why. As to the state, I don't think we do agree. If you are a Trotskyite, as you say, then you believe in seizing the state and turning it to your own purposes. I don't believe in that, because as a real anarchist, I disbelieve in the legitimacy of the state, given its inherently coercive nature, even in my own enlightened hands. None of which has anything to do with your deletion of the final graf of this article. --Christofurio 18:54, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Anarchy and Vanguards
I said you agree with anarchists in matters regarding the state. I'm not an anarchist, so of course you don't agree with me. Regarding what I am, I have been meaning to clarify this matter in my reply to your essay in Talk:Human nature (yes, you're not the only one around here with a good memory), but seeing how I've had to postpone that indefinitely (due to the time-consuming business of keeping up with changes on my watchlist), I will clarify the matter right here: I sometimes call myself a Trotskyist, because, of all established ideologies, that is the one closest to my own views. But I do not fully agree with Trotskyism (to be more exact, I do not fully agree with Leninism, which is included in Trotskyism). Specifically, I do not believe the "vanguard of the proletariat" should play any role in a socialist system (i.e. after the revolution). I am an uncompromising supporter of democracy in all fields. Philosophically, I am a strict utilitarian. The term I prefer to use in describing myself is "communist", and I would appreciate it if you did the same.

Now, as far as the article is concerned, I mostly agree with your objections. It is necessary to state why the example we mention is relevant. But it is also necessary to state that in a NPOV manner. I'll go do some editing. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "calling" you anything, whether appreciatively or otherwise! I merely noted what you had called yourself. As to the vanguard issue, I'm curious about when and how you expect this vanguard to disappear. It will exist before the revolution, but not after, is that it? So it has to dissolve during the revolution, a term that could apply to a process of any length. Or would you rather have the vanguard disappear as soon as the revolution begins, in the expectation that things will proceed spontaneously once the match is lit? As soon as someone throws the first stone at some future Bastille, the revolution is underway, and the vanguard that brought about the situation that led to the toss of that stone is obliged to dissolve. Is that it? Labels interest me much less than do the ideas they so often cripple. --Christofurio 15:16, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

The Tradition of Spontaneous Order
You may want to incorporate the wealth of material discussing the concept of "Spontaneous Order" to be found in Norman Barry's essay The Tradition of Spontaneous Order and in the Reader's Forum on the essay, which includes a short but brilliant essay by Nobel Prize winner James M. Buchanan.

Also, you may want to link to libertarianism, since "spontaneous order" is a key concept for libertarianism, just as it is for anarchism. --Nick 20:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

self-awareness
"This data is then processed by the planners, who form a network with the same degree of complexity as any market system, and, advocates argue, with the added benefit of self-awareness"

of course austrian economists would argue that the market IS self-aware, with valuable information moving faster to its destination and a very efficient negative-feedback mechanism in place, but no component of the network being able to make decisions on the whole of it. Whereas in a bureaucratic network ultimate decisions are necessarily centralised, and incentives for information transfer are extremely weakened, specially if superiors are of the kind that "shoot the messenger".--80.58.5.172 07:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. --Christofurio 15:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A misunderstanding of thermodynamics
Spontaneous order lowers the entropy of the system in which it arises; this means that a comparatively higher increase in entropy must occur elsewhere.

There is no law of "conservation of entropy" as you seem to be implying here. You must be thinking of the case in which two large systems are in thermal contact but not in equilibrium. Then there is the overwhelming probability for one system to increase in entropy while the other decreases. But there is nothing spontaneous about this.

If some isolated system "spontaneously" becomes more ordered (a possibility only extremely unlikely), it does not follow by course of reason that some other system with which it is not in contact should respond sympathetically. Because of this, I am led to believe that we need a more precise description of what "spontaneous" means in this context, or otherwise discussion of entropy elided. 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

EXPANSION REQUEST: Need a broader view of spontaneous order?
While I am sympathetic to the importance of the economics-related aspects of spontaneous order, this is after all an enclyclopedia, and it seems the recognition of spontaneous order in non-economic systems is a perspective that should be added into the article.

I recommend we re-write the article introduction and initial paragraphs to broaden the discussion of the phenomena to include natural (but non-human) as well as human spontaneous order, then have sections to describe each of the various types of spontaneous orders we want to cover in the article: one for economics, one for natural-living examples, and perhaps one for natural-but-non-living examples (e.g., the formation of mineral crystals, perhaps).

One potential example of spontaneous order in nature that we might want to use is | Locust Swarms and the bad news for those who fail to join in (2005) or | "Why Locusts Swarm: New Study Finds 'Tipping Point'" (2006)

However, even if you don't care for my particular example, I would appreciate it if others concerned about this Wikipedia article would weigh in on the broader point in my post. Anyone have an opinion? N2e 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is order an exception to the rule?
"It should also be noted that although spontaneous order may arise in some chaotic systems, it will by no means arise in any chaotic system. Order rising out of chaos is the exception rather than the rule."

Why "should this be noted"? Is it just a clumsy way of restating the 2d law of thermodynamics? That's already been stated. What more does it mean, and is that 'more' NPOV?

As for the 2d law, I don't question it in a cosmic sense. But its truth on the level of the cosmos is consistent with the hypothesis that the surface of the earth is a place where local decreases of entropy take place quite commonly. It is consistent with the hypothesis that spontaneous order is, on certain favored planet surfaces, the rule rather than the exception. So on what authority is an encyclopedia dogmatically asserting the impossibility of precisely that? --Christofurio 02:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Impossibility? Who said anything about impossibility? The comment was only asserting that spontaneous order is very, very unlikely - not impossible. Even on Earth, spontaneous order is a rare event. For example, keep in mind that it took some 2 billion years for life to arise. And if you throw some random objects into a cooking pot, the chances of ending up with any sort of spontaneous order are extremely remote (even if the cooking pot is receiving huge amounts of energy from the exterior). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What I objected to was your "exception rather than the rule" comment. If it is meant to refer to the cosmos as a whole, it is redundant of material already covered. If it is meant to refer to this planet, it is wrong, or at least highly confusing in a POV direction. And, yes, the ingrediants in the pot will sort themselves out into some sort of equilibrium. Whether you will find it tasty is another matter. To say anything about what kind of equilibrium we'd have to know more about the initial factors. For example, if we presume that the pot is strong enough to survive the temperature to which it is being subjected, but that the ingrediants are all subject to evaporation at that temperature, than the spontaneous equilibrium will be -- an empty pot. --Christofurio 19:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Equilibrium does not mean order. The cooking pot, for example, illustrates spontaneous chaos - or whatever name you wish to give to a final state in which the entropy of the system is higher than in the initial state.
 * At any rate, I've agreed to the removal of the disputed paragraph, in case you were still having doubts about that issue. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you've agreed. Still, I'm not clear on your point with this pot. First, why is a hot but empty cooking pot less orderly than a cool pot with liquid in it? We can get from one to the other without any chef in the kitchen -- why isn't that a case of spontaneous equilibrium and increase of order> Second, suppose a chef WERE in the kitchen. The chef wants to be sure that various ingrediants get into the pot, and that they meld together into a stew. From the thermodynamic point of view, is the stew a higher-entropy system than the original collection of separate ingrediants, or lower-entropy? It seems to me its more tasty but less orderly. So is this planned (and desired) chaos?--Christofurio 15:16, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia as spontaneous order
I took out the claim that Wikipedia is an example of spontaneous order. Besides it not being sourced, I don't think it's true. Wikipedia content is controlled by authority of the majority. And administrators are elected that have what could be called almost absolute and arbitrary authority over Wikipedians. Perhaps that's why it's so screwed up.Anarcho-capitalism 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The administrators exercise very little, if any, editorial influence over wikipedia. They have only intervened in a small number of cases; for example, they have never had any influence over the editing of this article.


 * Nevertheless, wikipedia is not an example of spontaneous order. What is spontaneous about it?  It is not like a market, where (for example) a complex, highly-efficient supply chain might arise without any individual even being aware of it, let alone designing it.  On the contrary, wikipedia demonstrates no organization that has not been explicitly specified by some human editor.  Moreover, where is the order to it?  It is a random hyperlinked jumble (as it should be!).  Its only order is that it is separated into articles with titles, but that is hardly an order worth noting.


 * Perhaps it is the actual content of articles that is supposed to exhibit spontaneous order, but again I do not see how. Every wikipedian adds his little piece, and the total is the sum of the parts.  Spontaneous order only occurs when something more emerges. Αναρχία 17:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and even within articles order is just as likely as disorder. Order only seems to happen in articles when one individual takes the lead and organizes things. When editors come and go changing information here and there, I think the organization eventually disintegrates.Anarcho-capitalism 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia is an example of spontaneous order. While some may have more influence than others, the value in Wikipedia is precisely derived from the fact that so many contribute little pieces of information, and others come along and organize it. Αναρχία writes: "Every wikipedian adds his little piece ... Spontaneous order only occurs when something more emerges." The article IS that something more! ~ Rollo44 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And in the interest of friendly intellectual discussion: I also disagree with the interpretation anarchists have of spontaneous order. Oligarchies, warlords, kings, and presidents are precisely the result of the spontaneous order of human interactions. The major difference is time scale. Spontaneous order would arise if we instantly dissolved the established order of human interactions which have evolved over time. But this fails to recognize that new orders, not necessarily benign and which exercise force, would then evolve. Don't forget the Iron Law of Oligarchy. And the fact that the beauty of market forces can only take place under the aegis of government. Who is to enforce contracts and fair trade when there are no courts and police? ~ Rollo44 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In a spontaneous order situation, no concious organization of the system takes place. If someone comes along and organizes things then it's not spontaneous order. In a market economy, there is nobody that organizes the economy. It just becomes organized into a very sophisticated system when each person acts in his own narrow interests (which don't involved organizing the economy). If there is a government that protects liberty, that itself is not spontaneous order. Protection of liberty is what is prerequisite for spontaneous order to take place, because there first has to be freedom in order for people to act in their own interests. That's what Proudhon meant when he said "Freedom is not the daughter but the mother of order." Wikipedia is not spontaneous order because clearly, when an article is fairly well organized it's because someone has come in with the intent of organizing it.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Do you believe that society at large, not just the economy, would benefit from a spontaneous dissolution of established authority and order? ~ Rollo44 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think society benefits to the degree that the non-aggression principle is enforced, by the state or voluntary government. In other words, it benefits to the degree that no one is being forced to do something other than what they voluntarily will to do. Of course, some people will make mistakes and do what is harmful to themselves, but on the whole, there is no better policy, both morally and pragmatically, in my opinion, than to allow each individual as much liberty as possible to decide for themselves what they should or shouldn't do. As a general rule, no authority should forcefully subvert an individual's pursuit of self-interest as long as that individuals respects the same liberty of others. I think that that policy allows the maximization of happiness for a society. A central planning board can't be trusted, and can't have the knowledge, to force individuals to do what that planning board thinks is best for society. Individuals don't need governing; they just need to be restrained from governing others.Anarcho-capitalism 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting last sentence. Therein lies the paradox: people need to be restrained(governed) from governing others. Who does the restraining? ~ Rollo44 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The police. If someone retrains someone from hitting someone else, that's a defensive action. That's not governing a person, but preventing him from governing someone else.Anarcho-capitalism 05:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if Wikipedia is an example of spontaneous order, that doesn't mean it should be listed as one on this article. The fact that it's so debatable is arguably reason enough to exclude it on its own, and I'm pretty sure there was a guideline somewhere about not giving special consideration to information about Wikipedia in articles that are not about Wikipedia. I'm going to remove that passage now; it shouldn't be too hard to put it back if someone has a good reason to do that. Jesin (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal. I think what's missing is a discussion of scope. I agree that emergence is a necessary but not sufficient attribute, but Wikipedia does not lack emergent properties. If we look at a tight scoping (say, the article level), no emergent properties exist and in fact, the quality of any given article is coordinated by authors and individual contributors. At a macroscopic level, however, Wikipedia is a fantastic display of spontaneous order, creating a deeply interconnected base of knowledge. Emergent properties ranging from highly relational knowledge paths, rapid dissemination capabilities, and a clearly emergent property of continuously reconciling itself to completely represent the actual knowledge available in the world while maintaining itself as an intelligible source seems to be a form of order despite the chaotic, uncoordinated macroscopic features it displays. No single author is directing this, and administrators themselves do not have the capability of accomplishing such a feat. If these properties are not driven by individuals and are not emergent, then what are they? I don't particularly agree with the "sum of its parts" discussion given that that argument would apply to the simplicity of individual neurons being the parts that if summed, would yield human consciousness and that consciousness is not emergent but rather a property present in the summation of said addition. Any thoughts? Esotericengineer (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Need a broader view of spontaneous order?
This is a new section continuing from the one above. I noticed that there may be disagreement as to whether spontaneous order is primarily a socio-political phenomenon or whether that interpretation is just one example of a broader meaning of the term. My understanding is that spontaneous order is not primarily a socio-political phenomenon. I think emergence, self-organization, and spontaneous order are all closely related concepts if not the same concept. The articles emergence and self-organization have a more scientific focus whereas spontaneous order has a more socio-political focus. This is understandable. Naturally, the article spontaneous order is going to receive more socio-politically oriented readers and editors, and hence will have such a bent; but this should not mean its definition and introductory paragraph need be narrowly defined by its socio-political understanding. ~ Rollo44 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism? This is missing the point
I was surprised to see that this article was tagged with the Anarchism series. The spontaneous order idea may, at first glance, look like it is core to anarchism, but it is not this simple. Spontaneous order has the word "order" in it, which means that rules are followed. Only, the rules have not been designed but have emerged out of a somewhat uncounscious process. This concept dates back to the Scottish Enlightenment when it was discovered that the market order was the result of human action, but not of human design. The Austrian School of Economics further developed this field of inquiry, which is core to libertarianism. Such an order involves notably the enforcement of contracts and respect/protection for private property. The idea of a 'spontaneous order' does not involve rejection of any form of government per se and is thus mostly related to libertarianism (which has some anarchist sub-branches such as anarcho-capitalism) rather than to pure anarchism. This is well supported by the fact that from the Scottish Enlightenment to the Austrian School and beyond, spontaneous order thinkers were not anarchists for the very most part. A tag change seems in order. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous order is the idea that maximum order will evolve if everyone's is permitted individual rights. I don't think any anarchists discuss or are even aware of this concept except for individualists since they come from the classical liberal tradition where the idea really originated, with the "invisible hand" and all that. I agree that the Anarchism template doesn't belong. Pointsmyth 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I agree with the "maximum order" part of your idea, but I again point out what you touched on, which is that this concept is core to all the libertarian trends of thought, while it is not for many anarchists. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Spontaneous order is the idea that maximum order will evolve if everyone's is permitted individual rights."

No. The above may or may not be true, but it is certainly not what spontaneous order *means*. What it means are things that are the result of human action but not of human design. GeneCallahan (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

anarchism template
Please reconsider the anarchism template. Spontanious order is a matter of freedom, or letting free. Anarchism is more letting free in the sense of social freedom, libertarianism is more letting free in the sense of capital. Or in other words anarchism is left freedom, libertarianism is right freedom. See folowing link for more detail http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 So according to anarchist theory there can be spontanious order in society (not ruling and letting society come to spontanious order). According to libertarian theory there can be spontanious orther in economic markets(not restricting markets with rules or governement sanctions). Also Anarcho-capitalism is the same as economic libertarianism (see both templates there). And last but not least the first to work out a theory in present times are Proudhon (an anarchist) and Hayek (a libertarian) Teardrop onthefire 10:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree (see thread above). Spontaneous order is about a kind of order and focuses on the nature and origin of the rules developed and followed within a given society. Also, libertarianism is far from being focused only on capitalism / economic freedom. Social freedoms are very important to all libertarian schools of thought. The point made by most libertarians is that political and civil freedoms can hardly exist without economic freedom, something that is usually understood only by economists, which is why more importance has been given to economics through libertarian writings. You also seem to confuse anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and conservatism. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the fact that spontaneous order has to do with some kind of order, so has anarchism, the translation of anarchy is not "no order", but "no ruler". So the core of anarchist philosophy is not wanting disorder but order without a system, ruler, governement, or any other "medler" dictating the rules or enforcing them. In other words an anarchist would like to see society ordering by natural law, or spontanious if you allow me the word. Spontanious order? Teardrop onthefire 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Update : I fail to see where I mixted up anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and conservatism. On the political compass anarcho-capitalism would be in the bottom right corner, minarchism would be bottom centre and conservatism would be top right. Correct me if I'm wrong please. Teardrop onthefire 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That chart uses "extreme libertarian" as another term for "anarchist." The extreme libertarian is an anarchist, left anarchist or right anarchist, according to that chart. The anarcho-capitalist would be a left libertarian or right libertarian depending on what one means by left and right. Pointsmyth 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Left and right is the economic scale (as is shown on the axes). More right would mean more freedom for capital, or freedom for the individual to do with his/her money what they want and less meddling in de economic system (Supply and demand in its most free form would be extreem right). Left would mean, more freedom for the individual as to social freedom, being able to have the freedom of being different, freedom of public space. Of course the one doesn't rule out the other, but being more right (or left for that matter) wil make you less left (and vice versa). If the freedom of capital is choosen, personal freedom of working times will be less. Labour costs will be seen as costs, not as means of compensation for labour. But is should be noted as mentioned in the article Left-wing politics: It should be noted that the left-right spectrum as a way of comprehending all forms of politics is far from satisfactory. Binary economics, for example, claims that it cannot be fitted anywhere on the left-right spectrum. Teardrop onthefire 08:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please look at the article [anarchy] to read However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action. My conclusion, the template anarchism is very much in place in this article Teardrop onthefire 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to me in accordance with anarcho-capitalism, but not with many other forms of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is also a libertarian trend of thought.
 * You focus too much on a dissociation between economics and social values. As you pointed out, the left-right spectrum is far from satisfactory, and that's why nowadays most libertarians do not use it - they talk of statism instead. Again, for many libertarians, economic freedom cannot be dissociated from social freedoms, and vice-versa. Promoting economic freedom while promoting social authoritarianism is usually associated with conservatism. Having the freedom of being different, both for libertarians and conservatives, is not possible without economic freedom, so that's not an argument. Just like it is wrong to say that choosing "freedom of capital" means less "freedom of working times". The free market, through the division of labour, in the long run, may really well lead employers to compete between themselves to keep good human resources and promote top-notch working conditions. I dont understand your focus on some dissociation between economics and social for this purpose. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to dissociate social freedom from capital freedom, I see them more as scales tilting the one or the other side, the perfect position being the middle. You are theorising that workers could compete with one another for better working conditions, but in the end, the company owner will decide. If workers don't have capital to support their competition or the owner blatently refuses (in favour of his capital) there is no progress. But enough about this. With all this talk of left and right, we are loosing the core of this discussion, wich is, is spontanious order a core priciple of anarchism and hence, does the anarchism template belong in the article? The reason I dragged left and right into this discussion was to state that anarchism was simply a more left philosofy to libertarianism. But on the issue of freedom on an equal level. As I have stated before Proudhon one of the two thinkers on spontanious order, was a self proclaimed anarchist : Another famous quote was his "dialogue with a Philistine" in What is Property?:

"Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." "A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans." "Well! You are a democrat?" "No." "What! "you would have a monarchy?"   "No."    " A Constitutionalist?"    "God forbid."    "Then you are an aristocrat?"    "Not at all!"    "You want a mixed form of government?"    "Even less."    "Then what are you?"    "I am an anarchist."    "Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government."   " By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."

And the the term spontanious order is already in the template anarchism under "anarchist theory". So my final point being, the anarchism template really does belong in the article. Teardrop onthefire 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, spontaneous order belongs on the anrachism template because it is relevant to anarchist thinking. On this we agree. What you fail to ackowledge is that spontaneous order is more a core concept to libertarianism than it is to anarchism as a whole, i.e. if you go farther than anarcho-capitalism.
 * Perhaps I could instead point you out that spontaneous order is indeed very important to anarchist ends, but that it is absolutely incompatible with most anarchist means (best example would be communism, but there are plenty of others). On the other hand, spontaneous order is always core to and compatible with libertarianism, both means and ends. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to differ with you, spontanious order is a key principe to anarchism as a whole, why else would one of the key thinkers on spontanious order proclaim himself an anarchist (not an anarcho-capitalist). Libertarian ideas are much closer to anarchist ideas as you think. Communism on the other hand has nothing to do with anarchism, it is a state controled system, and the key principle of anarchism is to let no one govern, but letting spontanious order do the "work". I was "accused" of focussing too much on a dissociation between economics and social values in liberterianism but you seem to do the same with anarchism. Teardrop onthefire 11:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me invite you to read what Marx and Lenin thought of communism and its ends, then you can return here and revisit what you just said. Perhaps you should also take a look at communism ("Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization..."). Again, the concept of spontaneous order can be associated with anarchist ends, but not with many anarchist means outside anarcho-capitalism.
 * No matter what, I have argued enough about this and agreement herein seems to go against your view. Let's move on. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, libertarianism acknowledges that spontaneous order leads to capitalism, economic inequalities, or people working for others. When it comes to this outcome of spontaneous order, anarchism does not hold the concept of spontaneous order on high ground, seeks to overturn it, and must in many cases presume that social freedom and civilization are possible without economic freedom. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

point of view concerns
This article largely concerns spontaneous order with regard to markets and deregulation, and minimizes spontaneous order on the political level as long been advocated by anarchists. More work is needed to help ensure a proper balance of content. Owen 12:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the article needs more content about the anarchist point of view, why dont you take the time to add material yourself instead of adding a POV tag and leave?
 * In any event, you must consider that under WP:Undue weight, it is only normal that this article has more material on the classical liberal/libertarian view than the anarchist's. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true if spontaneous order is more connected to classical liberalism than to anarchism. Either way I'd like to see a broader focus in this article. For instance, we define spontaneous order in terms of self-interested individuals, where other proponents of spontaneous order rely on interdependence. I really don't have time for researching this further but I would like to see this article reflecting all views. In the meantime I've removed the article's tag. Owen 20:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Talked about
As I see it has been talked about, but that is all, there is no consensus, no constructive builing of the article. I believe anyone has the right to place a POV tag and it should not be removed blatently. I am already in the course of seeking new sources, but the POV tag is a signal to other editors as well to start looking for new sources, so again please don't remove the POV tag for no reason, and please remain civil. Regards Teardrop onthefire 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When has anyone been uncivil with you herein? That's a rather baffling request...
 * Also, putting a POV tag on an article requires at least that you explain the unresolved issues that you have with the article. I see that you still wish that anarchism would be covered more and in this regard, you're welcome to suggest any new material in compliance with WP:UNDUE, but that alone does not mean that the article should be POV-tagged meanwhile. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Senseless graf
"Critics of anarchism essentially argue that the chaos created by the abolition of the state would not give rise to any spontaneous order, and/or would lead to a highly undesirable order, and/or that the spontaneity would lead in time back to a system of government.[original research?]"

Excusxe me, but doesn't all this seem to mean simply, "Critics of anarchism disagree, for various reasons, with anarchism"? And isn't that a tautology, needless to be stated here? --Christofurio (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional SO philosophy analogs should be added; Criticism section needed; Transparency rewrite
Analogs: Anarchy and economic aspects of SO are overbilled. SO's connection to minarchy, apologism, fatalism, nihilism, Social Darwinism and Objectivism - the family of abdicative philosophies - is missing and must be added.

Criticism: The article is inconsistent in format with other controversial Wikipedia articles, each of which typically has a Criticism section. Based on the discussion on this page, it seems that the author/contributors/correspondents are interested in defending SO in the context of economics and debating anarchy at length: these two elements address only part of the subject matter.

The Criticism section should be written by an expert in meliorism, progressivism, social engineering or socialism (good places to start for SO critiques). Respectfully skeptical that the author/editor, who seems to be an SO partisan, will be able to self-criticize (please take no offense: you no doubt nevertheless honor Wikipedia's goals of completeness and balance). In re criticism, note that fundamental tenets of SO are inaction/omission, which are in themselves, < > (as advocates implicitly require), ironic instantiations (examples) of the artificial engineering so despised by SOers. In the case of this article, omission of a Criticism section might be construed as "spontaneous disinformation" by those less sympathetic.

Transparency: For what it's worth, the Transparency section seems to be a draft, and thus diminishes the credibility of this article. A critic of SO might argue, for example, that the bursting dot.com bubble, like the ongoing bursting of the real estate bubble (in the US) and the global collapse/failure of free-market capitalism ca. 1929, among other minimally regulated events, demonstrate the non-viability of SO as an economic philosophy, although it is perversely hilarious that apologists seem so be saying that if only there had been less regulation/intervention everything would be just fine.

Dstlascaux (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A criticism section is justified. A work of yourself isn't. References please, instead of your imagination. --Bombastus (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I provided minimal, non-imaginative < > to directly relevant content as a foundation for appropriate amplification and missing content. Your removal of these entries without discussion, and non-response to the substance of my commentary seems to me to be in bad faith (I hope to be mistaken in this characterization and apologize in advance if I am). Perhaps most important, your deletion runs counter to the spirit of the numerous calls in discussion (other discussants please note) for expansion of the scope of the article, to which these entries are responsive steps forward. Here they are again, amended to neutralize "work of oneself" criticism:


 * ==Analogous theories==
 * In addition to anarchism, spontaneous order is related to such general theories as apologism, objectivism, social darwinism, minarchism, fatalism and nihilism, and to politico-economic theories including capitalism, libertarianism and mutualism.


 * ==Criticism==
 * Spontaneous order is opposed by such general theories as meliorism, progressivism and social engineering, and to politico-economic theories including socialism, communism and the Third Way (centrism).


 * ==See also (add)==
 * Apologism
 * Libertarianism
 * Meliorism
 * Minarchism
 * Mutualism
 * Objectivism
 * Progressivism
 * Social darwinism


 * Your deletion thus seems to constitute intentional censorship (opposite the stated spirit of spontaneous order) of what ought to be a robust article on an important topic. Please reinstate the Criticism and Analogous theories entries, and the See also entries (also edited to be neutral). At a minimum, you ought to evaluate for yourself the accuracy of the direct connections with apologism, objectivism, libertarianism, etc. - they are necessary (and supportive). With the above in mind, I am open to a spirited, good faith discussion with you on how to expand this article - reinstating this content will be a great next step. Dstlascaux (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules of the Road
I deleted the phrase "rules of the road" from the first sentence of the article because it is very vague. What is meant by "rules of the road"? If you have a good answer for this, please add it into the sentence in more specific language. Byates5637 (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Little weight given to Asian role shaping spontaneous order concept, then and now
I agree with the editors above saying that this article gives undue weight to anarcho-capitalist perspectives, and those saying it gives undue weight to the economics field in general. BUT also I see short shrift given to political applications at the core of the spontaneous order concept, creating a major WP:UNDUE WEIGHT problem, and even worse, little to no coverage given to the Chinese philosophers who birthed the concept of spontaneous order over two millennia ago. This is a serious problem of WP:Systemic_bias, English Wikipedia's tendency to center on Western culture at the expense of the history and contributions of Asia and the Global South. Since Confucius and Confucianism played such a huge role in creating spontaneous order (arguably inventing the concept) failure to include this is especially problematic. See WP:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias

Confucius' Analects speak of spontaneous order:

Lead them with excellence (de) and keep them orderly through observing ritual propriety (li) and they will develop a sense of shame, and moreover, will order themselves" (2.3).

As the junzi looks, listens, speaks, and moves in accordance with li, others, as the above quotes suggest, follow his or her example without coercion or force. In 15.5, we see the magical power spoken by Fingarette reinforced:

The Master said, "If anyone could be said to have effected proper order while remaining nonassertive, surely it was Shun. What did he do? He simply assumed an air of deference and faced due south."

Ji Kangzi Tzu asked Confucius about governing effectively (zheng), saying, "What if I kill those who have abandoned the way (dao) to attract those who are on it?"

"If you govern effectively," Confucius replied, "what need is there for killing? If you want to be truly adept (shan), the people will also be adept. The excellence (de) of the exemplary person (junzi) is the wind, while that of the petty person is the grass. As the wind blows, the grass is sure to bend" (12.19). Selections from: Association for Asian Studies [|"Navigating Through Confucius' Analects"]

This subject is so important in China, that you can scarcely understand how the PRC of today governs its many, diverse provinces and localities, much less governance under the Imperial system, without an understanding of spontaneous order.

Budding Sinologists and Asian Studies students alike will be surprised when they check Wikipedia and find nearly nothing on spontaneous order in Asia. NickDupree (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Art
The section on Contemporary Art was WP:UNSOURCED and appears to be original research (WP:NOR):

I can't find anything else about this "movement" or even the artist mentioned, other than a few social networking profiles. Interestingly, the [ first edit in this group] appeared 09:14 December 31, 2011 which is before the term was supposedly coined, and the edits continued through January 1; this leads me to believe the edit was possibly made by the artist herself. If anyone else can find a reliable source, please add it and revert my edit. Iansha (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Evolution?
How is evolution by natural selection not a major example? --75.143.164.159 (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no spontaneous order in the theory of evolution anywhere. This is also not a forum for discussion of the topic, but rather a place where we can discuss improvements to this article specifically. siafu (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As often, the IP was right. Ref below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)



Incomplete Sentence
"Construed by some but not all as the ushering in of organization by anarchist law."

This lacks a subject. GeneCallahan (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith and the "man of system" in the history of thought on Spontaneous order
Hi all. Just read the History section of the article, where the Scottish Enlightenment is mentioned, and Adam Ferguson's early observation of phenomena which are the "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design" is included. That's great; should all definitely be there.

However, I was a bit surprised not to find Adam Smith mentioned in the History of the development of the concept. (I realize that the "invisible hand" is briefly mentioned elsewhere in the article, but I'd like to put both the "invisible hand" and Smith's contributions in "Wealth of Nations" (WN) aside for just a moment.) In Smith's 1790 reissue (6th edition) of his first book, Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS)—originally published in 1759, 17 years prior to WN—Smith added a Part VI to the TMS book. It is in Part VI that his famous passage on the "man of system" is included:

"'The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess–board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess–board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess–board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.' Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie, vol. I of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982). Chapter: chap. ii: Of the order in which Societies are by nature recommended to our Beneficence. Accessed from on 2013-11-17"

Just curious, have any of the developers of the concept we moderns call spontaneous order related any debt to this line of thinking in Smith's TMS? If so, it would seem that some summary mention of it in the History section would be appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Same as Self-organization?
If as the lead (persuasively) states this topic is the same as self-organization, why do we need two articles on the topic? Much of this article would form a useful History section in the self-organization article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)