I am having some difficulty in understanding the 
notion of "spontaneous order." "Order" in this 
context can only mean "action in conformity with 
a rule," a definition that would seem to exclude 
spontaneity. One could assert that the rules 
arise spontaneously, but I doubt it. They may 
arise organically by groups discovering by trial 
and error or other means what works to their 
purpose or not, but that wouldn't be spontaneous by any reasonable definition.

Of course, different rules allow for different 
degrees of freedom, for more or fewer 
configurations. The rules of football provide for 
a variety of formations, the rules of baseball do 
not. But all of these formations are predictable 
(in principle) from the rules.

The only space I can see for spontaneity, broadly 
defined, is in evolution of the system of rules. 
Rules will not cover all situations in a complex 
society, and hence there will be opportunities to 
decide on new rules. One can say that these 
opportunities arise spontaneously, I suppose, but 
neither the rule nor the resulting will be spontaneous.

Spontaneity would seem to be a rule of disorder 
rather than order. The disorder itself may serve 
as a means of discovering different forms of 
order (rules), but cannot be that order itself.

John C. Médaille