Proof That Cooperation Is More Profitable Than Competition, page 1

Originally posted by nyk537
Sorry, but this is another liberal minded "Utopian" fantasy.

Competition is the basis for success. Competition breeds innovation and advancement. It encourages personal growth and success.

People seem to believe that there is some inherent problem with our current competitive system, but the real problem lies in governments interference in that system.

If you are trying to find the root of the "problems" with the way we do things now, I'd start at the White House.

Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers."

There is no way that I could have produced, by myself, the computer upon which I am writing this article. Had I devoted my entire life to the undertaking, I would have been unable even to have conceived of its technology. Many other men and women, equally unable to have undertaken the task by themselves, cooperated – without even knowing one another – in its creation. Lest you think that my writing would have to have been accomplished through the use of a pencil, think again: I would also have been unable to produce a pencil on my own, as Leonard Read once illustrated in a wonderful, brief essay. These are the ideologies you are sold in order that the system can function, in truth, their creation did not wait for the systems to be produced to exist, and the system did not wait on their production to exist.
Such cooperative undertakings have been possible because of a a "noble" lie sold as a truth – acknowledged by students of marketplace economic systems, particularly the Austrians – about human nature: each of us acts only in anticipation of being better off afterwards as a result of our actions. When in truth we act because we exist. Toward whatever ends we choose to act – and such ends are constantly rearranging their priorities within us – their satisfaction is always expressed in terms inextricably tied to decision making over something one owns (or seeks to own). Whether I wish to acquire some item of wealth, or to give it away; whether I choose to write some great novel or paint some wondrous work of art; or whether I just wish to lie around and look at flowers, each such act is premised on the fact that we cannot act in the world without doing so through property interests. It is in anticipation of being able to more fully express our sense of what is important to us, both materially and spiritually, that we cooperate with one another. Such things we are conditioned, from cradle to grave, to believe. However, these systems are not the reason why we do as we do. They are merely there for the many to be in the control of the few.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While it is propagated that the USA are consumers they are in fact producers global producers at that. Competition may drive our markets but people aren't currency, time is. We are actually co-operative as a people. Tit for Tat could apply. People could choose it or it can be forced on them but it is not inconceivable and no evolving need be involved. Competitive people have to be co-operative to achieve their own status. What star athlete never needed a team to get them where they are? What musician or actor or company employee didn't co- operate with others to get the work done?

AND

reply to post by Rumpelstiltskin

Wouldn't that be a way for the many to be in control of the few. In the heat of the moment the majority vote could trample the minority vote even if it's wrong. One voice one vote on every issue would require self accountability and and many need others to blame and so could never be sovereign accountable for ones own actions such as a vote. If the all could do it - it would be a true democracy, mob rules, majority whim, anarchy (why does that word always get associated with negative connotations?). If we treated our currency and co-operations as people as the law does and people are by nature co-operative then the real question is whether to take away their right to not co-operate such as with resisting arrest which is competition. Until interrogation which is co-operative. Although, I suppose an arrest can be co-operative also such as compliance with arrest. I don't know, I guess I'm saying that a true democracy as your rules would create sounds nice in theory but in practice the minority would suffer without representative votes to give them equal footing so we'll always have republic representor - represented co-operative or competition relationship. And it is usually when the two compete that public opinion isn't high of the vote or speech of the representative or he- they. But, that's the system we got. A good way to change it is to make it act as the system it seeks to replace. Don't ask me how to do that these are just random thoughts. And hi again Rumple, message me your email, I lost the account I had it in when I moved from Alabama.

In short Our world may seem purely competitive but we are just as much Co-operatists, everything we do co-operates with some nature while we compete with others, all the forms of life and regeneration, the food chain. And Tit For Tat would benefit many but injure some.

edit on 2-11-2010 by PhyberDragon because: grammatical errors)