The administration of the great system of the universe … the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man.~Adam Smith, TOMS
It seems to me that in re-solving dualities such as capitalism and socialism, there is a realization that not only are different perspectives sometimes divisive in a conflicting kind of way, but also that different perspectives cause different elements to be behave the same. Or it could be said that different perspectives create different divisions that create elements that might be observed in the same fashion.
Its a way of suggesting something such as movement a way, might also be seen as the object growing smaller.
Somewhere in here there is an important relation to “god” which I think starts to levate the possibility that infusing god in the argument of science might be a way of using religion and our understanding of it (or lack thereof) as the tool in re-solutance in regard to capitalism vs socialism.
An example might be to understand that since no person or group of person, or formula could or should accurately, fairly, or intelligently, predict the prices that are set out in our global market, it might be said that the only knower of such information can only be “god”.
The scientist might argue but to his avail as the religious person is now somewhat satisfied and justified (of course the scientist might be somewhat appeased that the religious person accepts the important conjecture of science that the markets should be left to there own accord without a central planner).
It seems there is room for this in the subject of propriety and the impartial observer as described by Adam Smith in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. I am not sure at this point if we might call that observer a god like view, and/or if we might extend that label to other parts of useful discussion in regard to society and the aggregated “subjective” view it collectively creates.
Society might be the optimal view, or god like, in this sense, or we might suggest the ultimate evolution of its propriety might be god’s knowledge (ie some ideal at infinite).
Nonetheless there might be room for the word “god” in this, and then a redefinition of our view on the historical use of god. In regard to Hayek and his works the Fatal Conceit, there is purpose of “religion” in this regard, as a simple way to allow public to pass around and adhere to rules that represent and symbolize conclusions of which the general citizen is not privy to the reason or basis of their formation.
So in this, religion should be no more detested by the rational person than, say taxes, especially at least in principle of their rationalized (and evolved!) purpose of existence.
I do wish to go into this in greater detail soon.
Lastly then, I think and suspect, that it can be shown through all of the above that the rules of a game are really to be formulated through the evolution of proprietorship, for reasons that can be expressed or asserted very differently depending on the perspective and purpose (here I mean to say I am going to propose below something that’s purpose and use itself could be manyfold).
That is to say as games, or society itself, evolves to gain more reasonable control over its existence, which in Hayeks view really means to be left to its own accord in the special areas in which central planning cannot solve, we might then see that the infrastructure that is laid down to support the field or population of “players” necessarily effects the nature of the rules.
In one way you formulate a game rules might necessarily be stated and written in stone outside paradigm of the game. Some rules might need to be (violently) enforced beyond the nature of the game. Sometimes there might need to be some form of external arbitrator. Some times there might need to be costly external mechanisms that enforce certain aspects of game play…
Then again there may be ways of structuring or evolving games to function in a way in which the rules are (in some ways naturally) enforced by the players and gameplay themselves.
I may have to think of examples and go into them over time, but what I am basically suggesting is that viewed a certain way, the nature of the propriety of the community that makes up the field of players that allows games to function, and who function in them, can be seen also as the rules themselves that make it impossible, for example, for other players to “cheat” in regard to the integrity of the “game play”.
Its like travellers and traders that frequent a certain road for travel, don’t necessarily need to be encouraged of forced in any fashion to support just behaviour and to actively dispel bad actors that might disrupt their active endeavours. Given certain conditions these players will naturally enforce rules that encourage long term sustainability of such a profitable and favourable trade route.