The Anatomy in Liberalism

The aim of liberalism is to create a complex civil society in which the conditions for liberty, safety, and wealth production are created. One can see civil society as being like a healthy body. The body is made up of a large number of different kinds of cells.
We have muscle cells, nerve cells, skin cells, hair follicle cells, heart cells, liver cells, etc. We have one body made up of a wide variety of cells. The body, as it develops, organizes itself without any sort of central planner.

There is nobody outside the body telling the cells where they need to go. The cells, as they interact and communicate with each other, figure out where to go and learn what they need to become in order for there to be a healthy body to support the survival of all of the cells.

All of the cells interact in a variety of tissues and organs which all work together to create a healthy body. Each of those tissues and organs is necessary for the rest of the tissues and organs and the cells that make them up.
You have to have a liver, or the body dies. You have to have a brain, or the body dies. You have to have a spleen, or the body dies.
And before the advent of surgery, you had to have a healthy appendix, or the body died. So even things seemingly unimportant have to be kept healthy. Nowhere is there a system in the body that is necessary to keep the others in line.

They keep themselves in line. Indeed, the closest thing there is to this is the immune system, which fights off foreign invaders and cancers. But even the immune system can become a problem if it starts attacking the body itself – as happens with autoimmune diseases like arthritis.

 Cancer is one kind of cell “deciding” the rest of the body ought to be only that one kind of cell. Leukaemia is a cancer of the immune system itself– it is the immune system trying to take over the body.
Civil society is similarly made up of a variety of social orders. We have the government, the economy, money and finance, technological innovation, science, philosophy, art and literature, religion, philanthropy, etc.

In a liberal civil society, each has its role, and it is important that each stick to that role. It is also equally important that they properly interact to create a healthy society. One could imagine the government as the immune system.
It is there to protect civil society from external dangers and from internal dangers. However, there is always a danger that it will attack the body (police corruption, bribery of police and politicians, etc.) and that it will become cancerous, trying to take over the entire body (police states, socialist governments, Marxist governments, totalitarian governments, etc).

It is best that the immune system/government stick to its proper role and not try to do the job of, say, the circulatory system/economy. Each has its proper role, and each is necessary to have a healthy body.
You do not have a healthy body if one system is an incomplete and total control over the rest of the body, or even if one attacks different systems in more subtle ways. For some reason, people seem to think that the government should not regulate, say, the arts and literature, as that would be censorship, but that it is necessary for the government to regulate the economy.

But we are really talking about the government doing the same thing in each case. We have identical social systems when we are talking about free markets and freely-produced art and literature (and freely produced science, etc) The problems created by regulating or controlling one will be found in others when they are regulated or controlled.

Central planning of the economy will cause the economy to crash; central planning of money/finance will cause the money supply to boom, and then crash; central planning of art and literature will destroy the culture; central planning of science will end discovery.
Indeed, we do not see artists out trying to kill each other over art; we do not see scientists out trying to kill each other over discoveries, and we will not see people out trying to kill each other in a free society with a free market.

Quite the contrary.

Freedom of association and interaction and cooperation and competition strongly encourages people to get along. People only kill each other when they see an advantage in doing so.
When dealing with a zero-sum game, such as government favors, you can expect hostilities to break out; when dealing with a positive-sum game, such as one finds in the free market, you can expect cooperation to break out.
Governments foster division. Freedom fosters cooperation. Sometimes we need to be divided – who doesn’t want to be separated from rapists, murderers, and thieves?
But we should be allowed to cooperate with the cooperative – to the benefit of ourselves and to everyone else as well.

 One can either have a rule of law or rule of men. Rule of Law means equality under the law: all laws apply to all people equally, whether they are in government, rich, poor, etc. Rule of law also means the rules are general.
They have to be able to apply to everyone equally. There cannot be different laws for different groups – whether those groups are based on race, sex, office, etc. And those laws have to be clear and simple.
There cannot be so many laws that nobody knows what they are and everyone is always breaking some law at some point. When there are too many laws, they cannot all be enforced, and that means you have a de facto rule of men since it then is up to the discretion of the police/government officials as to what laws to enforce.
 When the laws are such that you end up with the rule of men –either de facto or literal – you have the conditions for oppression and the destruction of wealth, culture, knowledge, wisdom, morals, etc.

A good example of this is in the area which has brought down the economy across the world: central planning of money/finance. Money/finance is one of the most highly regulated orders in the world, regardless of country.
What country doesn’t have a central bank? A central bank means central planning. And more, central planning means the rule of men rather than the rule of law. We have a small group deciding how much money there should be, interest rates, etc., rather than having these things discovered by large numbers of people across the country and world.
 The best laws are those discovered by people in their social interactions. And this includes the laws of the economy and the laws of money/finance. Local bankers are much more likely to understand the local situation and respond accordingly.
This stabilizes the local economies, which in turn stabilize the country’s economy and the global economy. Thus would the rule of law – and the discovery of law (rather than the enforcement of legislation) create more stable, stronger economies.
With their control over money and finance, our governments weaken our economies and create the conditions for class warfare and social disintegration.

 The Alteration of natural order clearly explains that humans are naturally social – but that does not mean we are collectives. There are huge differences between the two.
When we view people as social, we understand that their cultures and social environments – friends and families and coworkers, etc., institutions such as families and business structures and property protections (or not) – help individuate us, even as we in turn, it affects our social environments with our individual characteristics.

 When we view people as a collective, we demand that they suppress everything in themselves that does not conform to everyone else, to become literally like everyone else.
When we do that, we suppress the very things that make people create art and literature, make scientific and medical discoveries, invent new things, find new ways of doing things, create wealth for themselves and others, etc.

 Collectivism dehumanizes us, makes us lash out and hate and destroy and kill those who are not like us. As social beings, we interact with many different kinds of people, learn to love and appreciate those differences, and thus expand our moral sphere, But if a nation is threatened by a collectivists just as America has-been and continues to be threatened by collectivists within, then the end goal is to demoralise society which in result divides us to conquer us