Interesting, thanks for the replies to me, seeker5 and Brutha. Creativity eludes me sometimes, so, I can't really think of much to say in reply.
But, this discussion reminds me of an essay I read a while ago on the topic of free, open source software (which overall seems like a very lightworker sort of concept to me).
It has a section about the difference between competition and combat, which points out some reasons why good-natured competition (where everyone is just trying to do their best and no one is going out of their way to try to hinder anyone else), can be for greater good of all, while combat, in contrast, is for the selfish benefit of a few and is harmful, squanders resources, etc.
Quote from
Why Software Should Be Free - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) :
Quote:
Is Competition Inevitable?
Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not harmful; the harmful thing is combat.
There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the old days, there was competition among programming wizards—competition for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit everyone, as long as the spirit of good sportsmanship is maintained.
Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.
Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to impede each other instead of advancing themselves—when “Let the best person win” gives way to “Let me win, best or not.” Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.
Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.
Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with anti-trust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general, executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic equivalent of factional civil war.
|
Perhaps combat has given competition a bad name.
Best wishes,
Apollia