Cooperation vs Competition
Posted by NickSousa 9 years, 6 months ago to The Gulch: General
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/16...
“Francisco was right in AS1. This IS a war and we have to take sides. The problem is that I think its too late to prevent the apocalypse of socialism in the USA. The great mass of people who dont think will only abandon socialism when its failure is right there in front of them (which means the apocalypse). Look at Venezuela- its nearly collapsed and there isnt a revolution yet !!”
I suppose it all depends on what you value. If you are a child, then collecting play money in order to buy lots of toys to play with would be the pinnacle of your existence. Competing against others, collecting accolades and trophies, striving to win and “be better” than others – these are all products of people’s isolated consciousness, where they view other people as a commodity or something to go to war against.
If you are an adult, then there is nothing on this planet that you value higher than ensuring people’s safety, providing people the basics in life so that they can have dignity while on this planet, and ensuring that people’s lives are treated equally despite any ability or lack thereof on the part of everyone within the community.
Ayn Rand’s ideas are childish, because she places value on creating division instead of unity. We can see the result of this divisiveness all around us – corporations hoarding trillions of dollars and not paying taxes, people systematically being kept poor, individuals competing against everyone else, etc. Instead of cooperating with one another, people want to feed their own vanity and selfishness by competing against the entire world. This causes untold amounts of suffering and strife.
You may think that socialism/communism would be the end of the world as you know it, but in reality the ideals of unity and cooperation are the cornerstone of any advanced civilization. People strive to “be better” and “have more” than others in order to bolster their own sense of self worth – these types of children don’t realize their own inner beauty and magnificence, so they try to stymy any feelings of worthlessness by drowning their own insecurities with a pile of useless toys.
Let’s all put the toys down and contribute to society not because we have to, but because we want to advance our society. Instead of contributing for the sake of buying toys to play with, let’s all come together and make our society better because it is the right thing to do.
“Francisco was right in AS1. This IS a war and we have to take sides. The problem is that I think its too late to prevent the apocalypse of socialism in the USA. The great mass of people who dont think will only abandon socialism when its failure is right there in front of them (which means the apocalypse). Look at Venezuela- its nearly collapsed and there isnt a revolution yet !!”
I suppose it all depends on what you value. If you are a child, then collecting play money in order to buy lots of toys to play with would be the pinnacle of your existence. Competing against others, collecting accolades and trophies, striving to win and “be better” than others – these are all products of people’s isolated consciousness, where they view other people as a commodity or something to go to war against.
If you are an adult, then there is nothing on this planet that you value higher than ensuring people’s safety, providing people the basics in life so that they can have dignity while on this planet, and ensuring that people’s lives are treated equally despite any ability or lack thereof on the part of everyone within the community.
Ayn Rand’s ideas are childish, because she places value on creating division instead of unity. We can see the result of this divisiveness all around us – corporations hoarding trillions of dollars and not paying taxes, people systematically being kept poor, individuals competing against everyone else, etc. Instead of cooperating with one another, people want to feed their own vanity and selfishness by competing against the entire world. This causes untold amounts of suffering and strife.
You may think that socialism/communism would be the end of the world as you know it, but in reality the ideals of unity and cooperation are the cornerstone of any advanced civilization. People strive to “be better” and “have more” than others in order to bolster their own sense of self worth – these types of children don’t realize their own inner beauty and magnificence, so they try to stymy any feelings of worthlessness by drowning their own insecurities with a pile of useless toys.
Let’s all put the toys down and contribute to society not because we have to, but because we want to advance our society. Instead of contributing for the sake of buying toys to play with, let’s all come together and make our society better because it is the right thing to do.
And you make the fallacious assumption that leading the horse to water makes him drink! This has been shown to be false throughout all of history. The nations that are strong are the ones who visualize their goals and through hard work make them happen. Wealth does not come by sloth or by handouts.
As for being the "right thing to do", I will just ask the simple question: what gives you or anyone else the moral authority to determine what someone else should do?
Thank you.
To realize your ideal, you need to force many people on many things that they wouldn't do freely.
Please, state clearly your position (or side). Do you support the initiation of violence to get what you want? This IS the real question.
**Ayn Rand’s ideas are childish, because she places value on creating division instead of unity.** ...Really, really...
So you prefer socialism: "each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. with an emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries" or communism: "each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. With free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance" over Capitalism where a free market produces the best economic outcome for society. Really, really...
If this is your thought process......well all I can say is MOVE OUT OF THE USA! PLEASE!!!!! I think Cuba is calling your name and I will even come help you pack!
NO system will EVER be perfect. No system will ever be the complete answer for every individual. However, INDIVIDUAL liberty is the only way we can raise ourselves and others up. Once we achieve our INDIVIDUAL goals, we are then able to help others. There is no other way this will happen. Grow up and get some insight into what is POSSIBLE not some fantasy all wrapped up in good INTENTIONS that only creates the ILLUSION of "good for all" for the person who is spouting these ideals.
The main difference between the Objectivist and the Communist approaches is the most basic of human rights that exist. Under Objectivism you and your friends are free to pursue whatever modes of production and compensation you like, so long as they do not infringe on my choices for the same. Under Communism, I am not given that choice. I would be enslaved under the mantra of "From each according to his ability."
Giving up this most basic of our human rights is not how to "advance society" and I will have no part in it. I am John Galt.
Socialism does not work. Not in the Soviet Union; not in China. Communism - the forceful application of socialism - is (as I have mentioned before) nothing more than applying tribalism to a sophisticated society: minimal 'egalitarian' subsistence for the masses with overt accumulation of profit by the elite.
As I said before: No one here will complain if you decide to work your whole life 'for your fellow man'. My philosophy certainly allows you to do this if you want to...but your philosophy apparently does not allow me to 'not do this' if I wish to live differently. The reason for this is because I am a producer of worth. You therefore use force to separate me from the profits I earn so that you can distribute them as _you_ see fit.
I do not agree to this 'deal'. The people around me prosper because I have produced and innovated and worked for myself. I revel in their attendant prosperity; they have _earned_ it.
Jan
If you are born handicapped, or you are a child who gets diagnosed with cancer, what options are there for you? Should you suffer and die in poverty because you are not able to compete against other people? At what point will people realize that sharing with others is the solution?
People shouldn’t have to “fend for themselves” – I am not a savage, and I value the lives of people simply because they exist on this planet. They are not a statistic or a commodity, and I choose to share my play money because I care about other people and want them to be safe.
If you want to use the market to prey on others in order to collect as much play money as possible, then you are a child. You claim that people are being provided a service and are being given what they want – in a sense you are correct, because the vast majority of people want to get rich and have other people labor on their behalf. Mutual greed doesn’t help those that are unable to fend for themselves though, and maybe one day you will realize that there is more to life than grabbing as much useless junk as you can get your hands on.
You claim that cooperation is the solution but neglect to state clearly how that cooperation is to come about. How do you envision moving humanity in the direction you advocate?
JLC, Circuit-Guy, and others have pointed out that they are perfectly happy to have you pursue your "cooperative ends" just so long as you do not force or attempt to force them to do so. It is fruitless to continue to attempt to browbeat them as being "children" simply because they disagree with you. To me you seem childish and immature -- unable to mount any real argument beyond repeating what you "feel". From all that you have said I seriously doubt that you even know what the word "cooperation" means.
Jan
However, no matter the standard, Jealousy will be there. It is human nature to compare oneself to others and find that we are inferior in some way. Jealousy is what leads to competing to have more toys than the other.
Maturity comes when one realizes that externals are not the self and we stop judging ourselves by externals.
Only emotional maturity leads to unity.
The Gulcher comment you quote above is not saying we need to go to war with others to acquire accolades, toys, etc. It's saying we have to go to war with the idea that it's good to acquire things for others but bad to acquire things for ourselves. It's great to go and do something for others, and equally great to go do something for yourself. If you do something good for others out of a sense that your suffering for others is inherently good, it's throwing away your life and not really benefiting the people you're trying to help.
You later say that people striving to be better don't realize their own inner beauty. Doesn't it seem the opposite? If someone has some thing they love. like being the best juggler, making a computer chip that goes in millions of phones, or whatever it is, if they work hard at it and achieve it, that is realizing their own inner beauty. It doesn't take away from others' inner beauty. There's unlimited beauty to go around. One person makes an algorithm that makes a phone more efficient and someone else gives the phone a sexy look-and-feel. Someone else is thinking up some kind of phone or device that's completely new. They're all realizing their inner strengths and beauty, realizing a level of production of things people want that would blow the minds of people even 100 years ago.
Let's work hard and enjoy our toys. Isn't that what advancing society is about-- giving people the things they want, serving one another in fair trades, not by force or guilt?
The foundation of your argument is still based in division, not unity. There is nothing wrong with enjoying life, but take a look at how far people have taken the idea of "acquiring things for themselves". How much more imbalanced could our society get and still function? 80% of the world is in poverty, tens of millions of people die from malnutrition each year alone, the richest 7 people in the world have more play money than multiple countries put together, etc. I think we have conclusively seen the results of capitalism and competition, and it's ugly.
"You later say that people striving to be better don't realize their own inner beauty."
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that people's inherent need to compete against others and collect toys is based on their divisive thought, rooted in feelings of worthlessness. If you knew for a fact just how magnificent you are, do you think that you would feel the need to show off for others or buy overpriced toys to flaunt to other children? I don't feel that need whatsoever, because I know how valuable I am regardless of how much play money I have in the bank.
"Let's work hard and enjoy our toys. Isn't that what advancing society is about-- giving people the things they want, serving one another in fair trades, not by force or guilt?"
Advancing society takes many forms, which includes fostering an environment that allows people to be satisfied and happy. Unfortunately most human beings on this planet are children with a narrow minded view of the world, so there is quite a bit of conflict as a result. It has gotten so bad that the government is stepping in to force children to give up some of their play money so that people don't end up rioting because they are barely scraping by. How much worse does it have to get before people are satisfied that they are worthwhile?
Think for a moment what most people would do if there were no laws, and they were given complete and unrestricted control over the entire world's resources. They would never be punished for hoarding 100% of all resources produced on the planet - at what point would people finally "let up" and start sharing with others? This thought experiment can be used to gauge your own feelings of worthlessness. If you feel the need to hoard $1 billion, for example, that speaks to your own character. For me, I could be given unrestricted access to all of the world's resources and I would still live relatively poor until I knew that every man, woman and child on the planet is taken care of and shown respect.
What about you? At what point would "enough be enough", and you would feel the need to start sharing? Remember, no one would force you to play nice, and you would never be punished.
Gandhi told us to “be the change we want to see in the world”. You have just described exactly what you would do if there were no possessions – you state that you would not be productive if everything in society is free. I suggest addressing this flaw within your own mindset.
If everything in society is free, I would continue to work and ensure that our society keeps progressing higher and higher. No one needs to force me to work or hold my hand, because I am an adult and I realize that my contribution to society is inherently valuable, and that I am providing a needed service. Ask yourself why you would not be productive if everything is free.
Why do you need to be treated like a child who will only play nice in order to receive their weekly allowance from their parents?
“You make absurd presumptions that "taking care of and shown respect " works.”
You may be right that the ideas I am sharing don’t currently work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the highest ideal for humanity. Many people lack unity and are not self-motivated, because they are children. Look at some of the posters within this very thread, who state that they would sit around and do nothing if no one forced them to work and help society. This type of mindset is prevalent, because humanity is still in its infancy.
I am an adult, and anything I contribute to society is done freely – not because I need play money, and not because I want to buy toys. I will continue to contribute to society because it is the right thing to do. If there were no possessions, I would still value my contribution to society equally – I don’t need play money as some sort of infantile reminder that I am a part of something which needs my help.
If play money and toys are what motivated me, then I am stating to the world that I don’t really care about other people within my community, and I am only interested in “what I get” out of the arrangement. How humiliating.
Without a market (hordes of people buying and selling), how do you know what to contribute? Suppose you're making horse-and-buggy parts. Slowly the technology is making motorcars more viable. They will become viable as people find ways to make better and cheaper parts. A good business person wants to serve his customers, but he needs feedback from the market to know what to sell.
The same person is making a trade off with time with family and friends. If there's a great opportunity, he might work more and use the money to slack off with family and friends later. The market constantly gives us feedback.
** Why do you need to be treated like a child who will only play nice in order to receive their weekly allowance from their parents? **
This is the opposite of what we call for. You can go out, solve someone's problem for money, and take that money an invest it, or use it to slack off. You choose when to go serve someone and make more money and when to hang out with friends and family. You choose whether to spend your money on something you like, invest it in someone else's business, or give it away.
**If play money and toys are what motivated me, then I am stating to the world that I don’t really care about other people within my community, and I am only interested in “what I get” out of the arrangement. How humiliating. **
You can help people in your community and in the world by finding a problem they have and solving it or somehow making their lives easier. If you do it well, they should be glad to give you money. Maybe you find most people don't use half the features on Quickbooks, so you make a scaled down version for a fraction of the price. People are happy to pay you b/c you give them just what they want. You decide where to spend your profits. There's a grocery store that's found a way to sell packaged food amazingly cheap. There's another one that provides personalized service. There are options in between. You decide which one is worth your money, which one you're happy to pay for at that price point because they're giving you exactly what you want.
All of this is exactly the opposite of a child following an allowance plan. It's hordes of people willing and eager to help one another in fair trades.
The bizarre outcome of this, is everything's becoming nearly free. The value is more in more in creative problem solving. The price of a bolt or even an MP3 player is nothing. The market is realizing your dream of people working together to create a cornucopia.
I don't claim to have a solution to poverty. You're impying that people going out and helping people in fair trades causes poverty. I reject that.
**I am saying that people's inherent need to compete against others and collect toys is based on their divisive thought, rooted in feelings of worthlessness. If you knew for a fact just how magnificent you are, do you think that you would feel the need to show off for others or buy overpriced toys to flaunt to other children?**
I'm not arguing for people to compete and buy overpriced toys. I'm arguing for letting people alone to do whatever weird things they want to do in life, buy toys, enter polyamorous relationships, make a billion dollars by finding an easier way to treat diabetes, live a modest life and use their time to spend with family, play video games, trip on acid, whatever they want.
**Unfortunately most human beings on this planet are children with a narrow minded view of the world, so there is quite a bit of conflict as a result.**
I wonder if this is really true. All forms of violence are decreasing in the world. The arc of history bends toward justice.
**Think for a moment what most people would do if there were no laws, and they were given complete and unrestricted control over the entire world's resources. They would never be punished for hoarding 100% of all resources produced on the planet - at what point would people finally "let up" and start sharing with others?**
There's a difference between resources and things produced by those resources. Resources aren't worth much. All the value is in people putting them together in clever ways that serve others' needs. Individual resources are finite. If I own a unit of gold or oil, no one else can have it. The real value comes when someone burns the oil or uses the gold for bond wire or PCB finish, drives webservers that hold Facebook, and Facebook hires engineers to write algorithms that help my wife's legal practice find people who need her services. We take that money and buy some equipment so I can help someone get wireless modules working. The fuel burnt is finite, but all the value produced down the line from it is infinite. Investors who realized the value of Facebook (not me, I thought it sounded dumb at first) weren't hording their wealth investing in a startup. They turned their wealth into an amazing platform for people to build more wealth. Now billions of people have access to things previously only for the kings and the ultra-rich. Now we produce more food per unit area and at a higher quality than ever before. Over a billion of us eat like kings did prior to the industrial revolution.
**What about you? At what point would "enough be enough", and you would feel the need to start sharing? Remember, no one would force you to play nice, and you would never be punished.**
I don't think there's ever enough. I want humankind to conquer aging and disease. I want us to build interfaces to the brain that can give us instant access to knowledge, other people's experiences, and occasional non-addictive artificial feelings of well-being. I want humans to expand to outer space and have quality of food and bathroom facilities that make ours look like a root cellar and an outhouse. I want to get it by hoards of people all playing nice and fair and working hard to serve people in fair trades.
"Competing against others, collecting accolades and trophies, striving to win and “be better” than others – these are all products of people’s isolated consciousness, where they view other people as a commodity or something to go to war against."
"I am saying that people's inherent need to compete against others and collect toys is based on their divisive thought, rooted in feelings of worthlessness. "
Ayn Rand brings out some of those points and shows you what a sad dead end it is for the people you describe. She brings out the villains who manipulate them. I'm almost certain you would like these parts.
You might like AS too. AS is all about some of your points of people manipulating markets to take what they didn't earn.
If you hate them, though, it's still good to have all the details of what the enemy or the supposed out-of-control children are thinking. If you have a commute, you could listen to the MP3s a little at a time one it.
Do not believe what people say about it. Critics are out to demonize it. Many supporters are trying to shoehorn it into being about their own political agenda; I see a key theme of the books being rejecting politics altogether.
cg, do you mean politicians or other people? Objectivism does not reject politics. Politics makes up the fourth foundation of Rand 's philosophy. Aristotle, the most influential philosopher to Rand, wrote an entire book on politics. If your point is conservatives can "adopt" AS as their own, some do and others villify it. Liberals definitely villify it and frankly act scared to death of it. I read a statement that was great the other day regarding Sarah Palin which I think is great when thinking about all the time liberals spend bashing Rand and AS. Basically it was something like look at all those heads Rand lives in rent free.
Nowhere in these healthy and fruitful processes does it call for mutual destruction, exploitation, predatory hostilities, conquest, force, redistribution, enslavement, a phony sense of superiority by having more than someone else. These latter are aberrations, misdirected energies, malignant growths.
Don't try to claim these dysfunctional practices are "human nature". That's like claiming that sickness is normal and health the exception. The human brain has evolved cognitive functions to choose rational values and rational relationships. Mankind is finding itself in a warfare of ideas (call them memes). Our superb brain and its software can be infected by destructive ideas, and as long as unquestioning acceptance is our default setting, those ideas will grow until they kill the host.
And because our superb brains are quite capable of rationalizing to justify any destructive act, and getting support from the rest of the collective by emotional manipulation--fear, envy, revenge, hate, greed (ooh, reads like a list of mortal sins, doesn't it?)--it becomes exceedingly difficult to get reason and persuasion to reverse the course. Once violence is institutionalized as the only response, societies succumb, in effect, to an autoimmune disease.
Social harmony must begin with the individual--the singularity--and the individual's absolute right to self-ownership, from which grows the entire structure of peaceful collaboration and universal welfare. We had that philosophy in America; its seeds are still here. Don't let it go.
for the ends, and neglecting the means....... the
ONLY source of wealth, for both rich and poor, is
the creativity and self-interested activity of people.......
for example, I spent a life creating and working hard
to build a good future for my tiny family..... as a direct
result, I have money, now, to sustain others. this
sustenance benefits Navajo families in New Mexico,
Appalachian families in Kentucky and Tennessee,
the homeless and veterans and hundreds of others
around my town and the world. and I am not even
a millionaire!
cause begets effect. you must have the cause, else
there will be none of the desired effect. -- j
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/NickSous...
What does that tell us? About you?
What are we missing or you not telling us?
... 28b, in particular, Nick, regarding your basic premise and argument...