Hayek believed that humans are essentially a ‘rule-following animal’ (LLL vol. 1: 11). If the human mind is a system of general rules adapted to experience and typified by the classification of phenomena then this shapes a great deal of human behaviour and leads to a propensity to develop – both deliberatively and non-deliberatively – rules of behaviour.1 He argues that human integration in a social context is not the result of an association to serve common goals, but rather is to be understood as being the result of rule following by individuals (Hayek 1978: 85). Rules, Hayek notes, are necessary to create any type of order, in the sense that they are regularities that allow mutual adjustment and adaptation. As noted in the previous chapter, he cites the example of crystal formation whereby particle adjustment under general rules determines ‘the general character of the resulting order but not all the detail of its particular manifestation’ (LLL vol. 1: 40). In this sense, while the abstract entity remains the same, the crystal, the adjustment of particles in line with the general rules in particular circumstances shapes the precise form the crystal takes. In the case of spontaneous orders such rules are not commands issued with the conscious intention of creating a specific particular form (LLL vol. 2: 14), rather they are rules which facilitate the formation of the order itself. This relates to Hayek’s assertion that the social order has no purpose, but rather serves the purposes of its individual constituents. The function of the general rules that facilitate the social order is to serve the purposes of the individuals concerned as they adjust to each other and their circumstances in order to form the order itself (LLL vol. 3: 109). Such general rules are formal in the sense that they are purpose independent and apply generally to all particles in a given situation.2