Joining The Dots - Day 14

Good afternoon, I'm William Haines. It's nice to see you all here again. Thanks for sticking with us for three weeks. I wasn't quite sure if I was going to make it to the end myself, so I'm really happy and grateful that you were able to join. It's been quite an adventure for me, and just two days to go, I thought I wouldn't have enough to say, but to be honest, I could have gone another week. We'll carry on from where we were yesterday.

What we've been looking at over the last few days is a narrative account of biblical political philosophy, or the philosophy of politics as it's revealed in the Bible. As I've shown you, there is very much a narrative account. It's not like the Enlightenment books on political philosophy, which are generally very abstract and not really connected to real life or real people with historical examples. Here, we look at the biblical account, and the interesting thing about the principles is that they also follow a narrative structure. Whenever we listen to the teachings, we always start with Adam and Eve and work our way through the Old Testament characters in the Hebrew Bible, then through to Jesus, and sometimes a little bit through European history. I spend a lot of time also talking about American history as God's providence, which is also a narrative.

When we talk about the history of parallels, unfortunately, the way this is usually taught is to try to prove that the Messiah was born between 1917 and 1930. People rush through showing the parallels, but there's a lot more going on than that. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into it, but I did want to pick up the development of the able type of the Christian liberal democratic tradition. Before that, someone asked me yesterday about Hedwig. I find this kind of scheme very unsatisfactory. It's a scheme produced by particular people or particular genders, which is basically to make people anti-right wing. Right wing is now like a swear word; if someone calls you right wing, they're basically calling you a Nazi or a fascist. The further you go this way, the more like a Nazi or fascist you are. On this end of the spectrum, you're good by definition because you're socialist, loving, caring, and compassionate.

This is a much more accurate way of depicting the political spectrum, from less free to more free. At this end, you have fascism and communism, and the kind of societies created by idealistic people who wanted to create a good society. I talked a lot about how the roots of fascism and communism both lie in Platonic political philosophy, with a top-down pyramid structure where one person directs and orders everybody about, imposing order upon society. On the other end of the spectrum, we have absolute liberty, anarchy, where people do anything they want completely uncontrolled. Here, I would say Hedwig is somewhere around the way of ordered liberty.

Thinking about it last night, I said there were questions about how we could try to draw together some of the dots a little bit more. Right back to the very beginning, we looked at ordering chaos with Pythagoras, who identified order with good and chaos with evil. Then we looked at how Jordan Peterson identifies the masculine with order and extreme masculinity, and least authoritarianism, while the feminine is connected to chaos and the appearance of new things. In terms of politics, you've got totalitarianism and authoritarianism on one side, and anarchy and lawlessness on the other. The emphasis on collectivism is here, while the emphasis on individualism is within the principle. I talked about the balance between the purpose of the whole and the purpose of the individual, which is Hedwig. When you get the purpose of the whole and the purpose of the individual in balance, one fulfills the other.

Most of human society has emphasized either one or the other. In Noah's time, there was chaos, anarchy, and violence everywhere because there was no government, no law, and no justice. The response to that was Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, a totalitarian imperialistic society where order was imposed through force. This went on into Egypt, slavery, and societies like that, most recently in our lifetime with communism. What you see going on in North Korea is a perfect example of this. We also saw another attempt during the period of the judges and in the modern world, where we talked about failed states where there's complete disorder and it's run by gangs. I would say Hedwig is wise, stuck over here in the middle, which is freedom, meaning not free, but freedom as ordered liberty. People are free within the framework of law to pursue beauty, truth, and goodness.

This was the vision from the very beginning in the Bible, with Noah's code and those seven laws. We looked at the development of Hebrew society, the Israelites, the Ten Commandments, etc. This is a vision of freedom created by law, or disordered liberty. A command-based society has to follow orders, with someone at the top ordering everybody around. A Hedwig society is a rule-based society, like what was being accomplished at Mount Sinai, trying to create a society based upon law and simple rules that create a space for people to perceive beauty, truth, and goodness, and be creative. That's the Noahide covenant. Here, you have self-organization within these rules.

If you remember that video we looked at, 'The Secret Life of Chaos,' it's the same kind of idea that there is order within chaos. In the natural world, everything has an inherent direction of nature moving towards greater complexity. It's not just at the level of particles, atoms, and molecules; it's also at the level of human society. You have self-organization within the rules, so when you have a rule-based society, people develop all sorts of complex institutions without being designed. You have that order within chaos, and so Hedwig is like a limited government. The main function of the king and government is to defend the country, defending the way of life of the people, so there's no violence from someone invading and stealing their country. Also, there should be justice so that criminals who steal and do nasty stuff get punished and put into prison.

Limited government, as I talked about, has a separation of functions, going all the way back to the biblical tradition of prophet, priest, and king, and the separation of executive, legislature, and judiciary functions. An important thing here, which is solved from the period of judges, is that it's necessary to have government; otherwise, there is chaos. But it's very different from Plato's view, where the state is the source of law and people's identity. People think they have to worship the state, and the state becomes sacred. There's nothing higher than the state. This was the dominant tradition from Plato through the Greeks and Romans, and it has been a dominant tradition on the continent of Europe up until today.

Talking about Hedwig, it's just a functional state, not one where people are supposed to obey or get their identity from. It's just a state that upholds and defends the country, with a good army and law enforcement. It builds the roads, and the rest would be down elsewhere. In this vision of a Hedwig society, it's a biblical vision of God dwelling in the individual, God dwelling in the family through the Sabbath, and God dwelling in society. As God said, if you build a tabernacle, I will dwell and live among you. This is how I understand it: it's a synthesis and harmonization of the purpose of the whole and the purpose of the individual. People live according to their conscience, helping others, getting involved, cooperating, and supporting each other, not because they're ordered to do so, but because their heart moves them to do that. It's a spontaneous order, very much bottom-up.

Now, I want to look at this narrative and go back to the Divine Principle and the able democratic tradition. From the very origins, the democracies that emerged in England and the United States were very different from the democracy born out of the French Revolution. From the French Revolution, we have the inspiration that became the pattern for the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and all the stuff that happened there. The latter was a Kantian type of democracy founded by atheists and materialists who raised a Kantian view of life as an attempt to dismantle absolutism and feudalism. The English and American democracies, on the other hand, were founded by sincere Christians. The fruits of the able type view of life were born out of that struggle with absolutism to win religious freedom. This is part of the story I'll explain as a summary.

Let's have a look at how the able type democracy developed. Most of the time, I spent quite a bit looking at Europe, looking at the Kantian tradition, Plato, fascism, and communism. I'd like to have a look within Europe a little bit about the good side. Britain was conquered by the Roman Empire and was integrated into the Roman Empire for about 450 years, leaving a lasting cultural imprint, not just on geography or the straight roads, but also on things like law and many other aspects. When you cross this border, you realize the Romans didn't get that far; there's a cultural shift when you cross over that area. I lived in Inverness for about a year and a half and traveled all over the Highlands and Islands, experiencing a lot of stuff there.

Late Rome was a totalitarian society with no religious, social, or economic freedom. Why? Because the Emperor Theodosius decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome. This was a disaster because when Christianity became the official religion, there was no longer any religious freedom. All the academies and non-Christian schools were closed down, and people had to conform to the Nicene Creed. If they didn't, they were regarded as heretics and had to leave the empire or could be subjected to persecution. A lot of anti-Semitic legislation was also put on the statute book from the time of Constantine. That's why the Roman Empire lost the foundation to receive the Messiah; if the Messiah had been born in the Roman Empire, he would have been put to death for not subscribing to the Nicene Creed. Plainly, Rome became totalitarian, with no religious, social, or economic freedoms, a planned society all about the imposition of power and order. The whole Roman tradition is like that.

During this time, there's an interesting little thing called the Glastonbury Legends. I don't know if any of you have heard the song by William Blake, 'And Did Those Feet in Ancient Times Walk Upon England's Pastures Green.' This is Glastonbury, where there's a legend that Jesus visited Britain with his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. He's supposed to have stayed here and built a little house, visiting several times and maybe studying at the Druid seminaries, as the Druids were a very spiritual community within Britain at that time. The Romans didn't like them; one of the main reasons they invaded Britain was because the Druids kept leading to loss of rising in Gaul. After the crucifixion, the tradition is that Joseph of Arimathea...

Joseph of Arimathea returned to Glastonbury with the Holy Grail and buried it there. This is where the legends of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table originate. The main point I want to make is that the tradition of Christianity in Britain did not come from Roman missionaries or the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, it was planted by Joseph of Arimathea and developed through the Celtic Church. Following the fall of Rome, various patriarchates emerged, and there was a constant push from the east by the Anglo-Saxon tribes. As these tribes moved in, they displaced the Celts and others, leading to a migration where many settled in Britain. They became Christianised and sent missionaries back to convert the Germanic tribes, which were seen as the new chosen people after the fall of the Roman Empire.

At that time, the Germanic tribes had not yet formed a nation or government; they were still tribal and decentralised. This decentralised tradition has persisted in Germany, where various Länder exist. The Angles and Saxons who settled in Britain were freeholders, meaning they owned their land. They lived in villages and often gathered at a village moot for self-governance, discussing traditions and customs. From every hundred villages, larger meetings would occur, where representatives would convene. At a higher level, there was the Witenagemot, akin to a parliament, where representatives from across the country would elect or depose a king. Freedom was a crucial concept, coined by Alfred the Great, embodying a political philosophy that emphasised governance from the bottom up, where every man held his land as a right and chose his own leaders.

The king was not an absolute ruler; he was elected, and upon his death, the Witenagemot would decide his successor, often choosing from the king's family. The law was based on custom and formed the foundation of common law, which is still relevant today. This law was discovered rather than created, rooted in immemorial custom and seen as God's law, handed down through generations. Consequently, no one, including the king, had the authority to unilaterally change it. The king's role was to uphold the law, protecting the people's way of life, property, and livelihoods.

However, this system faced challenges during the Norman Conquest. William the Conqueror, having gained the Pope's authority, invaded England, claiming it for himself. This conquest was essentially a holy war, as the Pope sought to exert control over the English Church, which had origins independent of Rome. Following the conquest, all land became the property of the crown, and the Normans imposed feudalism, dispossessing the Anglo-Saxons. Those who resisted faced severe consequences, leading to significant desolation in northern England. For about two hundred years, the ruling class in England spoke French and built castles for protection, while the Anglo-Saxons were largely discontented with this new order.

Over the following centuries, the Anglo-Saxons began to push back against Norman rule. The Constitutions of Clarendon sought to place the Church under the laws of the land, challenging the Pope's authority. This led to significant events, including the murder of Thomas Becket, who opposed these changes. The Barons, frustrated with King John’s disregard for the law, forced him to sign the Magna Carta, a groundbreaking political document. This established that no person could be imprisoned or deprived of property without the judgement of their peers or the law of the land, ensuring that the king could not act arbitrarily.

The Magna Carta laid the groundwork for the recovery of democratic traditions in England. Democracy, as a concept, is rooted in the consent of the governed. Officials exercising power must have legitimate authority, typically derived from elections. This contrasts with inherited authority, like that of the Queen, or authority gained through force, such as a coup d'état. Democracy also provides mechanisms for changing government through peaceful elections, allowing for a transfer of power without violence. However, just because a government is democratically elected does not guarantee it will be just or competent.

The emergence of democracy in Britain continued with the Provisions of Oxford, where the king agreed to hold regular parliaments to discuss governance. This was a significant shift, as the king could no longer act unilaterally but had to consult appointed advisers before making decisions. This early form of parliamentary democracy marked a crucial development in the relationship between the monarchy and the people, laying the foundation for modern governance.

They were the ones trying to constrain the authority and power of the king, but then they decided to involve more of the people. This led to the establishment of the House of Commons, where more representatives were invited. Thus, there were two houses: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Edward I called the first complete Parliament, stating that it was right that what concerned all should be approved by all. He realised that he could not make decisions by himself if they were to affect the whole country; governance required consent, meaning everyone had to have a say and be involved in the approval process. This principle was crucial, as it harkened back to the biblical tradition from which much of this inspiration came.

In 1376, the right to impeach any servant of the crown who had done something wrong was established. This meant that the king and his servants had to be under the law. Kings often dislike being bound by law, preferring the freedom to act without constraint. However, there was a pushback, notably with the Magna Carta, which forced the king to abide by the law. Consequently, any of the king's servants could be impeached and tried if they broke the law. In society, both houses of Parliament were necessary to change the law; no one had the authority to change it alone. The entire Parliament, representing the whole people, had to be involved in any legal changes.

Simon de Montfort was instrumental in calling the first House of Commons. As things developed, Henry VIII came to the throne and had issues with the Pope regarding the heir to the throne of England. He decided to remove England from the authority of the Pope in Rome, leading to the end of papal authority in 1534. England then became an entirely self-governing country, with Henry as the head of the Church of England, independent from the Roman Catholic Church. Elizabeth I later attempted to create an Elizabethan settlement to incorporate everyone into this new Church of England, amidst significant religious conflict and divisions.

In 1603, the crowns of England and Scotland united under James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England. The 17th century saw significant religious divisions between Protestants, Anglicans, and Catholics. Some Protestants in the Church of England, dissatisfied with the established order, went to Switzerland, became Calvinists, and radicalised. This period marked the beginnings of democracy within the religious sphere, as congregations sought to elect their own ministers rather than accept those appointed by bishops. The Pilgrim Fathers, who were Puritans, left for America due to their impatience with the Anglican system, which they felt was too hierarchical.

Parliament asserted its right to control its own elections, further diminishing the king's privileges. Their privileges were not granted by the king but were seen as the natural birthright of Englishmen. This was a recovery of the old Anglo-Saxon tradition, allowing them to discuss matters of public interest and exercise liberty of speech. They could criticise the king without fear of imprisonment or worse. The Petition of Right established that no man could be taxed without consent, echoing the principle of 'no taxation without representation.' This was a restatement of the Magna Carta, continually pushing back against authoritarianism.

In Scotland, there was a desire to avoid any imposition from the English king, leading to the abolition of the Star Chamber, where the king had set up an alternative legal system to try people without a jury. Charles I, who believed in the divine right of kings, resisted these changes and sought to raise taxes independently, leading to the English Civil War. This period resulted in significant social disorder and a surge of religious pluralism, with various sects and spiritual groups emerging. In the chaos, Oliver Cromwell rose to power, establishing a military dictatorship. After Cromwell's death, the monarchy was restored, and principles such as habeas corpus were established, ensuring that people could not be imprisoned without due process.

Another king attempted to re-establish monarchical authority, leading to the Glorious Revolution, where William and Mary were invited to protect English liberties. This resulted in Parliament seizing the opportunity to limit the king's power further, ensuring that taxes could not be levied without parliamentary permission. This ongoing struggle aimed to separate the authority of the king from that of Parliament and the judiciary. The English and Scottish parliaments united, but Scotland retained its own church, legal, educational systems, and currency, preserving many of its traditions and customs.

As English settlers went to America, they sought to create a different system, declaring independence and establishing the principle of 'we the people' as the source of governmental authority. In the 20th century, various reform acts expanded the franchise, allowing more people to participate in governance. During this time, the intellectual development of society also progressed, particularly through the Industrial Revolution, which transformed the world. Starting in the north of England, the Industrial Revolution was deemed the most important event in human history since the domestication of animals and plants.

The population remained stable for thousands of years until the last couple of hundred years, when exponential growth occurred. This growth was attributed to the first sustained increase in living standards for ordinary people, a phenomenon unprecedented in history. The Industrial Revolution began in England due to the political struggles that had established freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, and ideas. This environment allowed for creativity and innovation, leading to the development of a free press and the rule of law, which protected individuals from arbitrary imprisonment and allowed for the formation of groups without state permission.

The rule of law, established by the Magna Carta, ensured that the king could not decide who broke the law. With freedom of association, people could meet and form groups without needing permission. This led to the emergence of democracy, where individuals could establish clubs or churches freely. In England, no church is officially registered; anyone can form a church without state interference. The law, rather than the state, became the source of legitimate authority, reflecting a biblical tradition. An independent judiciary emerged, ensuring that judges could not be influenced by the government, a principle that largely remains today. Property ownership also became significant, allowing individuals to own homes and businesses securely, fostering a culture of respect for property rights and enabling the free market to flourish. This environment of freedom and creativity laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution, which spread its benefits across the globe.

The standard of living and population are part of a continuous struggle to create a framework for society based on the Three Blessings. This framework allows people the freedom to realise beauty, truth, and goodness, which are essential requirements. The principle asks where the ideology essential to establishing a new world will come from. This ideology must arise from the Democratic world, rooted in an able-type view of life. However, history shows that no conventional ideology among those prevailing in the Democratic world can effectively defeat communist ideology. Therefore, a previously unknown ideology will emerge from within the Democratic world, and this truth is the essence of the able-type view of life, which is core to democracy.

The core of this ideology is the biblical political philosophy that creates a framework for people to be free to pursue beauty, truth, and goodness. It allows individuals to realise the Three Blessings and worship God as they choose, while also forming families, societies, and communities protected by the law. This long struggle leads us to consider influential thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, who received the Founders Award from Father many years ago. His book, 'Road to Serfdom', is a concise and powerful exposition of political philosophy that was shocking when published. It offers a different perspective on political thought and is worth reading for its insights.

In 'Road to Serfdom', Hayek discusses the freedom to order our own conduct in circumstances that force choices upon us. He emphasises the responsibility for arranging our lives according to our own conscience, which is essential for moral values to grow. This resonates with the language and philosophy of the Divine Principle, highlighting the interconnectedness of freedom and responsibility, the rule of law, and moral life. Hayek's humanistic understanding aligns with the Three Blessings, and he urges people to embrace the challenge of building a free society as an intellectual adventure. He argues that unless we make the philosophical foundations of a free society a living intellectual issue, the prospect of freedom will remain bleak.

Hayek's ideas were foundational for the fight against communism, influencing leaders like Reagan and Thatcher. Despite the significant problems with democracy, as Winston Churchill noted, it remains a system that must be critically examined. The historical debate about law and authority dates back to ancient Greece, where Socrates opposed the punishment of generals who had not broken any laws. This raises questions about whether a democratically elected majority has the authority to act illegally, and whether they can impose their will on a minority.

The biblical solution to the issue of majority rule is that the law must protect all individuals, regardless of the majority's opinion. Even if 99% of the population disagrees with a minority, that minority still has the right to express their beliefs and live freely. The law exists to safeguard these rights, and the biblical tradition asserts that a majority does not have the right to change the law arbitrarily. This debate echoes through history, as seen in the discussions between Socrates and Pericles about the nature of law and authority.

Moving on to the principle view of economics, we must understand that our civilisation operates as an extended order. This extended order encompasses not just families but entire societies and economies. It is orderly and emerges spontaneously from individuals making decisions and adjusting to circumstances. This complexity is not the result of human design but arises from the interactions of people within society. Societies evolve, passing on knowledge and customs, leading to varying degrees of prosperity based on the rules they follow.

David Hume, an empiricist, contributed to this understanding by observing that the rules of morality are not products of reason but arise from experience. He noted that when individuals labour alone, their capacity to achieve is limited. Society provides a solution through collaboration, where the natural attraction between a man and a woman unites them, forming families that contribute to a more extensive society. Families are the foundation of everything, as they enable individuals to work together, leading to greater prosperity and wealth.

Speaking of people, they do not become their children's guardians simply because they love them. Over time, customs and habits make children aware of the advantages they may reap from society, as well as the fashions that shape them. The family, then, equips individuals to live within society. As Father said, families are a school of love, teaching us how to form relationships with others, including peers and those of different ages. David Hume describes the family as a principal unit; he himself was a skeptic. He observed that the human mind is inclined to join with others in harmony. Essentially, people are attracted to one another; a man is attracted to a woman, and they marry, love each other, and raise a family. They seek to relate to other families, including cousins, uncles, and aunts. This interrelation forms groups, which then form tribes, and ultimately, societies. In a great society, most people do not know each other beyond a tribal level, yet they treat one another with respect, expecting the same in return. Although many pass by strangers in the street without knowing them, there is an underlying respect that governs these interactions. As societies interact, they form nations, and nations interact to create a world.

The principal view is fundamentally bottom-up, guided by a universal prime force driving us towards greater complexity. This process occurs spontaneously and naturally, reflecting the way the world operates. The family serves as a dwelling place for God, and as my wife often reminds me, a family that stays together fosters a spiritual life, creating hope for the future. Marriage is an act of faith, hope, and love, providing meaning and a reason to live across generations. Families are places for love, where relationships flourish and cultural values are transmitted from one generation to the next. Within the family, individuals are socialised to behave appropriately within their communities and countries. Furthermore, families often form the basis of economies, as members work together to create wealth, support one another, and develop a sense of ownership over their homes, gardens, and businesses. This sense of ownership encourages creativity and fosters a culture of giving and sharing.

However, as David Hume noted, societies are more than just families; they also encompass social structures and institutions. He made a clear distinction between the family and society, stating that families are based on love and forgiveness. Parents must love their children endlessly and forgive them repeatedly. Similarly, siblings must maintain love and forgiveness towards one another. In contrast, society is based on justice rather than love and forgiveness. For instance, if a sibling breaks a toy, one does not seek legal punishment but rather offers forgiveness. Society, however, requires justice; when someone steals, they must be held accountable to uphold the law. Thus, families are rooted in love and forgiveness, while societies operate on principles of justice, which often involve appropriate punishment for wrongdoing.

Hume also recognised that we need goods—such as carrots, apples, bananas, and coal—but there is always a shortage of these resources to meet everyone's desires. This scarcity leads to the question of how we decide who gets what. Society's advantage lies in improving the availability of goods, yet the instability of possession and scarcity can create impediments. People may feel insecure about their ownership of possessions, such as cars or bicycles, due to the fear of theft. Hume observed that our strongest concern is for ourselves, followed by our families, and then our extended relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Our moral obligation is to care for our family members before strangers, reflecting a natural partiality in our affections. This unequal affection influences our behaviour in society and shapes our ideas of good and bad. Hume noted that we disapprove of those who neglect their families in favour of strangers, highlighting the importance of familial bonds.

As families expand into small societies, affection tends to decline with distance. Scarcity of goods exacerbates this issue, leading to selfishness and limiting our generosity. The result can be destructive conflict over resources, such as access to fishing grounds or hunting areas. To prevent such conflicts, a framework of commonly accepted rules is necessary. Hume identified three principles of justice, asserting that people naturally share what they have with their families, driven by affection. Scarcity, however, breeds envy and conflict, as reflected in the Tenth Commandment, which warns against coveting. While everyone desires to possess goods, they also wish to enjoy their possessions without interference from others. Hume's first principle states that every person, regardless of personal feelings, should be left undisturbed in the enjoyment of their possessions. This principle is upheld because people recognise its usefulness; they understand their own desires and extrapolate that others feel the same way.

This understanding of compassion aligns with biblical teachings, such as the command to treat others as one would wish to be treated. Hume argued that if everyone follows the rule of respecting each other's possessions, conflict can be avoided. Ownership is not merely a personal relationship with an object; it is also a social construct acknowledged by society. As long as everyone abides by the convention of ownership, arguments over possessions cease. The institution of property encourages a long-term perspective, as individuals can enjoy the fruits of their labour and pass on their possessions to future generations. This desire to leave a legacy fosters industriousness and careful stewardship of resources. In contrast, communism, as articulated by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, advocates for the abolition of private property. This abolition means the state owns everything, eliminating the possibility of true ownership and hindering individuals from fulfilling their creative potential. Without private property, individuals cannot become true owners or exercise their creativity, as they must seek permission from the state for any alterations or improvements to their lives.

Freedom is a significant theme in the works of Leon Trotsky, a great hero for many on the Left. During the purges of the last month of 1935 in the Soviet Union, when Stalin was establishing his regime, hundreds of thousands of party members were expelled. Among them were tens of thousands of Trotskyists, perceived as disloyal to Stalin. The most active were arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. For the rest, Stalin used Pravda, the state newspaper, to advise local organs not to give them work. In a country where the state is the sole employer, this meant death by slow starvation. The old principle of 'he who does not work shall not eat' was replaced by a new one: 'he who does not obey shall not eat.' This illustrates how, when the state owns everything, annoying a bureaucrat can lead to losing your job, which in turn leads to starvation.

Property is necessary for freedom; it is a guarantor of freedom. David Hume identified that stability of possession is not enough; there must be a way for people to exchange their property. The second principle is that the convention of rights over goods may be transferred by consent. This means trade is possible, leading to the division of labour. For example, if I have a garden and grow potatoes but want lamb, I can exchange my potatoes for your lamb. This transfer of ownership can only occur by mutual consent, whether through giving, sharing, or exchanging goods. Importantly, there must be no stealing, fraud, or robbery; all transactions must be consensual.

This principle allows for specialisation in the division of labour. One person may excel at growing potatoes while another is skilled at growing tomatoes. They can specialise in their strengths and exchange their produce, leading to a more complex society. This complexity arises not from a central plan but from individuals realising they can specialise. The market becomes the place for these exchanges, typically located at convenient crossroads or river crossings where many people gather. In a free market, anyone can buy and sell without monopolies, and prices are established through these interactions. Money developed as a convenient unit of exchange to facilitate trade, making transactions simpler.

In an economy without private property, central planning becomes necessary. Hayek commented that central planning leads to totalitarianism because whoever controls the means of production must decide which ends to serve. This control over economic activity means dictating nearly all aspects of life. The planner imposes a hierarchy of values, and any criticism of the plan is treated as sabotage. In theory, socialism may aim to enhance freedom, but in practice, collectivism leads to totalitarianism, where the whole is prioritised over the individual. Without a free market, there is no spontaneous order; everything is a result of a plan made by a central authority, reminiscent of Plato's philosopher king.

Hume's third principle addresses the inconvenience of bartering and the need for promises. If someone wants to buy my potatoes but their crop won't be ready for months, they must promise to deliver something in return later. This reliance on trust is crucial; if promises are broken, trust erodes, and trade collapses. The saying 'my word is my bond' reflects this principle. In a functioning economy, people trust each other unless given a reason not to. This trust allows for free trade among strangers, regardless of race, sex, religion, or politics. In contrast, communism undermines this trust, leading to a culture of lies and bureaucratic hurdles.

David Hume identified three blessings essential for a functioning society: property, ethical relationships, and moral integrity. Property allows individuals to own their businesses and homes, fostering a sense of dominion over creation. Ethical relationships in the market mean treating others with respect and honesty. Finally, a moral society requires individuals to keep promises, enabling trust and cooperation. These principles form the foundation of a free market, where people live according to their conscience and do not harm others. Hume's insights reveal that a free society thrives on these principles, which are crucial for its development and sustainability.