1 Natural and Artificial Social Order
To begin, "society" is an abstract concept and the invention of men who find it difficult to relate to others as individuals and instead want to ascribe to all mankind the certain properties of his whole species. Anyone who groups men into "society" and ignores them as individuals has created something fake to distract himself from the complexity of reality. It is this unnatural and illogical process that leads political and economic theorists astray.
No other creature on Earth considers itself to be a member of a society, and ponders the broader impact of its actions upon others of its kind. And yet, we see great swarms and herds of beasts, and large numbers of creatures of different species all living harmoniously in the same environment. It is only man who complicates things by presuming to understand and wanting to control any creature other than himself. It is only man who, ignoring the laws of nature, has the hubris to write his own and the narcissism to believe that they will take precedence. There is no parliament of antelopes and lions.
This unnatural behavior is said to be necessary to protect the community as a whole against those who would kill, loot, and burn. But in a natural environment man has no such inclinations - it is only when men organize themselves into bands that they begin to take on this behavior. And in response, their victims organize themselves to defend against their attacks. But soon after any society is formed, it ceases the legitimate consideration of how to protect itself against external enemies and instead begins to victimize its own people. The vast majority of the laws written by men have nothing to do with defense, but are contrived to exploit and control members of their own society. The cure, it seems, is far worse than the disease.
Back to economics: consider the life of an average man, such as a village carpenter. He renders a certain service to his society, and receives their service in return. He spends his day preparing boards and joining them together into useful objects - and if the objects are indeed useful and well-made, others will desire them and offer him other things he needs in exchange for his good work. No threat or force is needed to compel him, as he is driven by his desire to be productive and exchange with his fellows in a peaceful manner.
The needs of such a man are simple. He must have a place to sleep, clothing to warm him, and a bit of food to sustain him. He can make all of these things for himself, but because he is skilled in woodworking it is more efficient for him to fashion items to trade with others. And again, if his product is indeed useful and desirable, other men need not be forced to trade with him, but will do so willingly.
What is true of a man is true of a village or a nation. A village that produces cattle and wheat can trade their product to another village that produces clothing and boots. An entire nation that is skilled at producing cotton can trade with another nation that is skilled at producing wine. And with the advances in transportation technology (EN: merely roads and ships in the author's day) goods can be traded in large quantities across vast distances - but the basic principle remains the same.
Return to the carpenter: he can trade for food and clothing in his village, and get everything he needs to survive. What he wants beyond that are conveniences: a little sugar and a little olive oil, a soft mattress and some decorations for his home. He can trade for these things as well if he is sufficiently productive and if there is sufficient demand for his products. And if he is very productive and there is a high demand, then he can even become wealthy in time, all without any coercion or force applied to his fellow man - and the fulfillment of his desires gives to other men an opportunity to obtain his work to fulfill their own.
This describes a perfectly peaceful and harmonious way of living, in which all men in society serve their needs by their own effort - whether fabricating what they require or producing something that will be willingly accepted by others in exchange for the very articles of desire.
He then turns to a more leisurely class - for example, the university student whose days are spent in study, and who produces nothing useful for any other man. But he must still consume in order to sustain himself by consuming the product of others. This is only a temporary imbalance of production and consumption. The student may sustain himself by consuming past production (he saved to pay for his education), consuming the production of a benefactor (a parent or sponsor pays his expenses), or consuming his future production (he has borrowed and will repay later). This is true of any pursuit that is not immediately productive.
The student, the artist, or even the dilettante who consumes without producing is therefore not a parasite upon society, as some would suggest - unless the product he consumes (money or goods) is taken by force from others. Children and the elderly are also in this same position - as is anyone who is not at the moment being productive. The carpenter who takes a month-long vacation is not a parasite, but is enjoying the rewards of his own labor.
Per our opening point, "society" is an abstraction that embraces many individuals, each of whom is a moving and autonomous party in a system that works very well if it is left alone. Social engineering is merely forcing people to make or buy things they do not need or want and interfering in their private decisions about how to enjoy (or share) the product of their own labor. None of this is necessary or helpful.
He does concede that in some instances, there is a temporary situation in which allowing nature to take its course results in more suffering than enjoyment. And it is in our nature as sincere and good-hearted men to assist our fellows when they experience suffering through no fault of their own. But this cannot and should not be extended to forcing them to act against their own interests and desires "for their own good" at all times because we presume to know better than they do what is best for their welfare. This is simply an improper way for civilized men to interact with one another.
To say that we should allow nature to take its course is not to object to philanthropy - to render help in times of need is an honorable characteristic. But when taken too far, philanthropy becomes curdled into slavery - to attempt to control others when help is not needed is far from honorable, and claims of being socially-minded are a transparent veneer for meddling in the affairs of others. There is a certain unmistakable arrogance and contempt in the practice of social engineering.
He also finds it rather ironic that self-interest is depicted as a moral failing when it is most often benign. The greater cause of evil and tragedy in this world has arisen from actions that were done "for the good of society" by those who had no self-interest other than the gratification of meddling in the affairs of others and the desire to be praised and honored for serving society.
Another common problem among social engineers is a fascination with their goals and a disinterest in their means. To achieve a society where everyone has bread is, in their mind, such a noble goal that it justifies the enslavement of all the farmers, millers, and bakers. Though it can be noted that the planners of such society generally see themselves and their friends as being among the bread-consumers, not among the bread-makers, in their grand social order.
He does get a bit cheeky about it, but describes the attitude of the social engineer as being likened to a man who declares "God has made a mistake and it is only by accident that humanity has survived for the past hundred thousand years. I shall put things right." It is all the more curios that rules claim a divine right, when their demands are clearly a violation of divine will.
And again, this is not to say that man cannot give counsel or guidance to his fellow men. But the best advice, and the best law, is based on experience - counseling others to avoid making the same mistakes, and knowing them to be mistakes because of the actual events of the past. It is a wiser counsel than fantasy about what might happen, but which never has, and bears no resemblance to any experience (and often contradicts it).
He natters a while longer on similar thoughts, before stating "I beg the reader to forgive this long digression" but feels that it has considerable value. Economists, politicians, and others who have designs for all mankind would do well to consider their motives and think through all the consequences. Particularly young men, whose bold visions are marked by hubris and a lack of experience, should be cautious and reluctant to lay plans for all of society.
What we consistently find is that nature is quite wise and needs little help. Seek to understand rather than control.