In a cynical view, you could say that if you have a lot of money, a large house, what you will, in most European countries, your house is a piece of that civilization. It is subordinated to the claims of civilization. States-side, it often seems that if you have a large house, a lot of money, etc., you have only that property as itself, and the civilizational context is simply the desire for more people to be more prosperous in that manner. It's laudable aim, but if you think about it, if your neighborhood realized that they would each be twice as rich as you if they took away your house, you would want a more idealist grounding for liberty. And that's precisely the ground I've seen vanish on more than one occasion. At the critical moment, the civilizational context, the rules of the game, the larger meaning of which the specific social encounter is just one part, vanishes in favor of private advantage. More, it does so under a claim of right.
It's not about the rule, or lack of a rule. It's about where you situate the meaning of the property claim. If it's a part of the republic, if you own a piece of America, it has meaning in its inherent ideological content. If the meaning is the immediate possession, virtually anything goes.
Similarly, if a deliberative process is part of the society's general attempt to bring as much truth into the world as possible, arguably necessary constraints and biases come into view. If the committee is simply a group seeking as much private advantage as possible, this has a certain determinative social character.