On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:54:13 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> You are assuming all competition is harmful, but it isn't.
> 
> I know, but there is a general idea that all competition is beneficial.
> That is the implicit assumption under (neo)liberalism. Sometimes you
> have to exaggerate to get a message across.

Depends on the audience.  Some audiences look at such exaggeration and 
say "this person has gone off the rails" and stop listening completely.

> Look at the disasters in the financial world, look at the industry and
> organizations for places that you might like to work in and those that
> you don't.

I've been observing the problems in the financial world, and to 
reiterate, I never said *all* competition was *good* competition.

> Is all competition always beneficial?

No, and I never made that claim.  I've explicitly said that there is 
beneficial competition and harmful competition.

> Look also at a cross section of a town or your family. How many are
> competing for resources or jobs just because they like it?

It isn't a question of liking it.  "Nature" doesn't mean "we do this only 
because we like it".

> Then ask yourself the question, are all humans competitive by nature?

I come to the same conclusion - they are.  That some choose to suppress 
the natural instinct doesn't mean they aren't competitive by nature.  
Again, humans have the ability to suppress instincts.  Some forgo 
reproduction as well - does that mean humans aren't driven by the 
instinct to reproduce?

Jim

Post a reply to this message