Actually, I'm thinking of doing exactly that.
I don't see how "more order means more economic activity": if anything, I associate "more order" with more bureaucracy and higher barrier to entry for new economic agents.
It's contextual, actually. I presume you are commenting from an industrialized nation. For you, more order is going to mean more bureaucracy, more friction, and less economic activity.
For someone living somewhere, where the rule of law doesn't even apply, to the point where it's hard to maintain basic infrastructure, there isn't enough order yet. In that case, more order = more economic activity.
I'm saying, in the context of digital security, the Internet as a whole still suffers from a poverty of infrastructure that inhibits many kinds of transactions. There is tremendous risk and opportunity here for those daring enough to do something about it.
Essentially, "social trust benefits the economy and a low level of trust inhibits economic growth".
You're not going to open a store if you're pretty sure it's going to get robbed. Order doesn't have to mean bureaucracy.
This is why you don't see very much inward investment in places like Russia, Somalia and so on. The barriers to entry are very low for anyone with capital and an idea, but the barriers to exit are very high. Consider the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
Bureaucrats need to get real jobs.
I don't see how "more order means more economic activity": if anything, I associate "more order" with more bureaucracy and higher barrier to entry for new economic agents.