Quote Originally Posted by bjr View Post
I might not have understood all of what you've said...let me know if I've gone off on a tangent somewhere.

What you are saying is correct, to an extent, on the macro level....not so much on an individual level. This is where the inherent flaw in all social structures comes in where the interest of the self is almost never exactly aligned with the interest of the whole group. This causes imbalances and deems equilibrium impossible (without utter chaos which one might consider equilibrium, I imagine). I've been parroting this line about how competition and anarchy seems the ideal solution when you think of a faceless mass of people yet tends to not remain as effective when you consider situations you have personal involvement in.

You also say that intervention is not a problem at a lower level. Why? It is essentially the same rationale. Trying to protect one's own. To use what you said against you, I think what you've said here is "Some intervention is okay but excess of it in everything is not" which is, once again, arbitrary and individually driver.

I think a mistake you make in your argument is that the authorities you speak of are not single authorities. Governments compete with each other, religions compete with each other...I believe that if we had aliens in the neighbourhood and were competing with them for something, we would already have had a world government by now. Forming ourselves into units seems to be fairly commonplace in society...quite natural perhaps? To use what you said against you, I think what you've said here is "Some intervention is okay but excess of it in everything is not" which is, once again, arbitrary and individually driven.

If I understand correctly, what you're questioning are the rules that are lay down within each of these societies (eg- rules for a country where the government or court is indeed a single authority) and saying that these are not in accordance with the rules of the jungle (correct me if I'm wrong). What I'm saying is that we tend to form herds and battle the jungle as a collective. However, within the herd, it is the rules of the herd that we live by and not the rules of the jungle. Sometimes these might be the same but I can think of a number of instances where they are not. It is within the herd that we crave equality and benefits and we do not want equality in the jungle. Your argument here is that why not have a jungle within the herd? Surely that will lead to a more efficient herd? No doubt it will...but I doubt that the point of the herd was efficiency.
We both can bite each other's head on free market vs controlled market.
Anarchy vs dictatorship, Capitalism vs Socialism, ... and it will never stop.

However, the point that I was trying to make was about one phenomenon:
Competition is the basis of the so called "law of jungle".

Our society (or our herd) - has rules which run counter to this rule of jungle.
We humans love to believe that we don't live by the rules of jungles, BUT every important aspect of our lives is governed by competition - whcih is nothing but an outcome of the so called law of jungle.

The individuals that learn to circumvent the rules of our herd, and reckon the truth of competition are the ones that get the coveted ALPHA rank in any aspect of life.
A Life that has been structured by the same herd and its rules.

But the irony - you win when you don't play by rules.