Human beings need to order themselves in some fashion. How that order should arise. There are those of the opinion that man should order themselves arbitrarily; others by some fixed rule. All political and social order arises from a state of nature, where all people are free to order themselves, their life, and their property. But for something like a peaceful state of nature to exist, or for states to by mutual agreement form, there must be some fixed rule to guide them; which explains the countless states in early societies on the earth. I first seek to obtain what fixed rule this is. Then I show how from it a peaceful natural state can be arrived as predicted by Locke, and how societies through the mutual assurance of their collective welfare can be adaptively ordered from it. I use the word adaptively when I discuss the formation of states, since because there must be some fixed rule under my paradigm, states must climb toward it as human nature and its people progress; and must not remain stagnant or tepid in their obtainment or approval of it.

In order for humanity to arrive at a peaceful state of nature, which at any rate must to some semblance exist for any state to form (some peace must exist for a group to collectively agree to form and exercise state authority), there must be some fixed rule to guide the people. Some order to determine whether a strongarm constitutes thievery and should be punished, and to moderate the strife that could exist in a natural state. Suppose an early principle, articulated in numerous forms and to be abstracted to varying degrees, arises in the form of not harming others in their life, their non-harmful actions, and in what by reason ought to belong to them. Of course, even a principle like this can be subject to scrutiny. Can you attack others for violating your life, in self-defense? What belongs to people?–thievery certainly and sometimes obviously exists, but what exactly constitutes it in nuanced cases? A state of nature that is incapable of answering such questions is incapable of maintaining peace in such a form as to give rise to states of even the most mediocre kind, which require some premeditated agreement. The people in this state (of nature) would need to have some means to answer these questions to guide the matters, and so they'd need some principle at large.

This principle must be a belief or understanding in the general goodness of humanity, and in the advancement of things that promote the fullness of it. Therefore, what constitutes thievery in nuanced cases depends on how much ruling it such will advance humanity toward a fuller and better state. Certainly things like murder will always be unjust. The necessity for such a large-scale a priori principle is not for cases like that. It's for answering how much harm must be inflicted before homicide turns from unwarranted to an act of magnanimous retribution. That is why all states ban murder, but different states have throughout time placed restrictions on how much arms are accessible to the people. Violence is acceptable sometimes, but should people have access to pocket knives, handguns, or nuclear weaponry? An answer to that can be given appropriately if the a priori principle's significance and nature is grasped.

This is what allows the earliest natural instances of humans to exist peacefully. Not with any fixed government authority, but by the mutual knowledge that they have each other's interests in mind, by viewing the betterment of humanity toward fullness as the chief vision. From it, people can submit to be governed; or at least, institutions can agree to come into existence, forming a state. Now, the idea that the ultimate guiding principle should be toward the fullness and betterment of humanity is relatively new in our history in its bright and radiant form today, yet it has existed in some form or manner throughout our history. The more that principle has been understood, the greater humanity's mutual peace and welfare is secured. The fact that we now view that as so obvious explains the rapid advancements in societies and states when compared to prior periods in history.

People describe the state of nature both as one of war, and of peace. Both as one where states form out of fear and desperation, and one where governments form due not primarily to fear but out of a calm desire for additional peace and cooperation in a realm where it existed in fine yet not adequate substance already. Indeed, it depends on the nature of how well the principle of bettering humanity toward fullness is understood. I would argue 10 or 20 thousand years ago that principle was not well-understood, that people only superficially grasped the idea of advancing humankind toward fullness; and that resulted in many wars and conflict. I would argue 500 years ago we now understand that idea pretty well, and have improved relatively since, in many ways.

We were always leading to that principle of goodness. So, the idea of forming a state is to secure the properties of that principle in such a manner better than what the individuals alone in that society can do. Seeing as at one point that principle was not well-understood, it's no wonder it led to so much strife and factions. But now that principle is well-understood. Securing its fruits thus comes down to a matter of articulating its profundity to people, and properly engaging with it. By securing its fruits I mean achieving mutual welfare, security, and prosperity for the people, and laying down or harmoniously directing whatever government is necessary (if any) to that end.

It is from this that I derive the primacy of the individual in these affairs. No person can come to know this principle except by finding out its unique brilliant application in their own life. And that application constitutes an understanding of the principle of bettering humanity toward fullness, at its core, this mediated and glorious application of it in the individual's own life. None of this is as abstract as it sounds. Perhaps an individual sees them, working toward the fullness of man, on a beach, in Hawaiian garb, giving speeches for a cause for which they find important, developing infrastructure to support the same, surrounded by folk alike in kind. By knowing this about oneself, one gets it. They can then discuss what might be best for others, or society at large, and in this manner contribute to the mediation of a peaceful society, the government thereof, and the laws at any point that would aid it–as one knows what laws and mediation worked for one, and can derive such properties for those at large through that knowledge.

That is why the individual is so important in politics and its fruits. People cannot form a peaceful society unless they understand the importance of working toward the fullness of man, but no one can understand the importance of working toward the fullness of man unless they know how to work toward the fullness of themselves. This, a far less burdensome yet still mighty prospect, allows them the knowledge of the former through the derivation of its principles to them. Only that person, not any other, knows how to work toward their own fullness. Thus, the primacy of a peaceful society at large, the primacy of a just state at large, is precisely why the one person, the sole individual, is so crucial.

Therefore, the individual must be given freedom to, at minimum, dispose of their thoughts as they see fit, and to take actions that would permit them the advancement and attainment of their betterment. Through this, and by the specified means, people as a whole, in a natural state and in government, can advance their collective betterment. Since people are so varied, and their betterment also so varied and known only to them, people must be given a wide net of liberty. At the individual level, yes.

A well-structured society, natural or through government, must be adaptive. Human beings are guided by a fixed rule, that of collective betterment, and come to know it through understanding their individual betterment. But the exact processes, laws, and interpretations of the law at any given point are adaptive; they depend on what point people are at in their betterment. A land where people are not very far along in their betterment must be governed by different laws, and ordered subordinately in a different manner than a land that is farther along in its betterment. The individual people in a land may be conceived as at a certain phase, and this constitutes a general societal purview of what would aid them most greatly in ordering their state, natural or unnatural. This is to say that a society where many or most individuals understand the better part of their human nature might, for example, permit laxer laws on certain things than others; and make even more lax laws as it progresses.

There would not be one "ideal" law when it comes to any policy to be ruthlessly obeyed, but it should be conceived appropriately in relation to what would advance people at large toward collective fullness, which is itself derived from what stage the individual members of that society are at in their individual betterment; and this is a determination for an individual to make from their understanding of their own betterment, where indeed they can derive other people's and society's and the laws and orders most appropriate for them. All this, at the same time, not refuting the idea of an ideal form of humanity's betterment, but acknowledging that people must reach a conclusion, not nature itself, and people must abide by their own understanding of themselves and the conclusions extended from it and through it to conclude how society should be justly ordered. This depicts a just, truthful, and most beneficial structure of society, people, and states through the adaptive pursual of what is good for them and themselves (marked by a permanent, fixed rule that they must discover and maintain individually, and only through its individual application and what is derived from it in pursuance of the former).