Posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:56 PM PST by Sir Gawain
If your neighbor is happy, someone must be paying for this with unhappiness, no? If Americans are rich, someone in the world must be poor in return, right? If the store is making a bundle of money selling something, the costumers must be getting ripped off, correct?
The answer is that none of this is right. One person's happiness, even success, need by no means come from another's failure. Even in an out—and—out race, someone who wins it does not always does so by beating another. More often it is by beating his or her own previous best time. But in races, yes, there are winners and losers. Life, however, isn't a race, all those quick and dirty analogies people try to make with sports to the contrary notwithstanding. Least of all is life a combat, as those who preach the all encompassing significance of power keep maintaining.
Life is not a zero sum game, so that one person's advantage must involve another's disadvantage. When people are getting ahead, they may leave some others behind but this doesn't mean they put them behind, not at all. If a Bill Gates makes billions it does not have to involve making others poor or keeping them from getting rich as well.
There is plenty of room for getting ahead in the world without having to trip some others up so they must remain behind. Not that I was around then, but I recall hearing about how upset some were in Hollywood when television came on the scene — no one will go to the movies anymore, TV will deprive the industry of its clientele and so forth went the outcry. And when VCRs got introduced into the market, and cassettes and, later, CDs. There was a lot of whining each new device would displace the others.
On the contrary, it looks like the car didn't quite displace the horse and buggy or the bicycle, nor are horses becoming rarer now that few people use them for transportation. Nor did the computer do away with the typewriter, only improved it a lot.
The problem is that many folks confuse improving with replacing and thus they fear that their pet jobs or gadgets or regions of the world are being victimized. This kind of thinking can lead to very serious misunderstanding, indeed, hostilities and suspicions.
It was one of my professors who noted that love is not the sort of commodity that diminishes because you give it to someone new. And this is evident enough when parents have no trouble loving seven kids as much as just one.
What my professor didn't tell me is that a great many other matters seem to come on the scene without pushing others off. There is plenty to go around, provided people engage in production rather than theft. Consider that the antique market is flourishing — television shows have been fashioned around it galore — so even completely outmoded stuff remains in circulation aplenty. How can this happen? True enough, at any give point in time the world is finite and a plus at that moment would mean a minus, as well. But the world moves — time changes everything. As far as the world in time is concerned, there is plenty of room for amplification, for the increase of good things, without having to suffer losses. Zero population growth may have some uses but it is not necessary except where productivity isn't robust. With human ingenuity and the world being a vast place indeed, the ideal of cutting back is misguided.
So how about that bit about the happiness of your neighbor having to come at the expense of someone's unhappiness? Not so. There is plenty of happiness to go around, if one but works at it hard enough, finds worthwhile things to do, which is open to everyone, especially in a free enough society. And what about America's riches causing the poverty of Third World countries? Completely off the wall — just as when one goes shopping, both the seller and buyer can make gains with no harm to either, the richness of one country can happily coexist with that of another. There are enough differences among human beings that the process of open exchange will most likely secure for them all a measure of enrichment without incurring the loss of another. No one in the world must be poor in return for some people being rich.
Unfortunately there are among us enough people — and certainly throughout history there have been many — who would rather not produce riches in order to obtain wealth. Rather they would prefer stealing it. Burglars, bank robbers, embezzlers, fraudulent dealers, petty thieves and such all spread the idea that what it takes to gain for someone must involve losing for another. But this is perverse and completely misleading.
Sadly the idea behind it is one that is widely embraced by some of the smartest people in the world, namely, all those who think that human relationships must all be about power. The belief in — more than the reality of — this does indeed cause much grief among us.
Machan, who teaches at Chapman University in Orange, California, advises Freedom Communications, Inc., on public policy matters. His most recent book is Initiative — Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000). His email address is Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com.
It might even cause more problems in such circumstances. A high proportion of old folks to young folks can't be that great where productivity is concerned.
While we're on the topic of economic theory, does anybody know of a good critique of the Labor Theory of Value? It seems to be the root principle of Marxism, but Locke also taught the same thing.
So how about that bit about the happiness of your neighbor having to come at the expense of someone's unhappiness? Not so. There is plenty of happiness to go around, if one but works at it hard enough, finds worthwhile things to do, which is open to everyone, especially in a free enough society. And what about America's riches causing the poverty of Third World countries? Completely off the wall - just as when one goes shopping, both the seller and buyer can make gains with no harm to either, the richness of one country can happily coexist with that of another. There are enough differences among human beings that the process of open exchange will most likely secure for them all a measure of enrichment without incurring the loss of another. No one in the world must be poor in return for some people being rich.
Well, duh! :-)
Land, real property, & the resources of the earth are finite. - Most 'games' are played, and wars are fought, over 'turf', - over property & resources.
I don't see that changing in the near future.
The 'war on terrorism' - or more apt - the terrorists war on us, is fueled by millons of losers in the zero sum game of muslim society.
They think they have nothing to lose by bringing us down to their level.
Convincing them otherwise is not gonna be fun.
Contrary to popular belief, the earth is not a zero sum game. The use of earths resources can be constantly improved and used more efficiently.
One example, multi-story buildings. The earth did not provide them, man invented them.
Contrary to popular belief, the earth is not a zero sum game.
We have more? Where?
The use of earths resources can be constantly improved and used more efficiently.
No doubt about it. But resources are finite, no? So is land.
One example, multi-story buildings. The earth did not provide them, man invented them.
Learn something new most every day, I do. -- Not today.
Well, it looks like you want an old fashioned malthusian debate.
You have basically made my arguement. When you say "resources are finite," you ignore the idea that new uses, processes, sciences, and techniques will be developed.
Another example would be modern agricultural techniques.
Please take your malthusian theory back to the 19th century where it came.
Me:
No doubt about it. But resources are finite, no? So is land.
You ignore my answer, yet attempt to ridicule my conclusion.
Great debate. Thanks, but I'll pass.
Come back when you're feeling better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.