Actually, +Alex Grossman
, I think you are over-broadening the concept of competition and misstating my position.
For example, you claim I am trying to "exclude the competition of ideas, for example in education." But, actually, I explicitly used education as an example of sensible competition. I would rather not use the word competition to describe it, but that is far from saying that I'd like to disallow it altogether.
Who in their right mind would be against the "competition" of ideas?
I'm simply making a distinction between two different types of competition. There's the broad sense of competition, where people try out different methods to achieve the same goal in order to identify the most effective way to accomplish that goal. And then there is the narrow sense in which a competitor can only win via the loss of another competitor.
Do you agree that this distinction exists? If not, that there's no reason to proceed further with this discussion.
It is my contention that it is the latter sense of competition that is distinctly capitalist in nature, and it is the benefits of this type of competition that I have a difficult time understanding.
You say "What we need to do, as a society, is find mechanisms of allowing for healthy competition and the creative destruction that permits the reallocation of resources while at the same time minimizing the harm that individuals can suffer."
I couldn't agree more. But, for me, this means getting rid of the narrow sense of competition while keeping the broad sense.
What you and other capitalists seem to believe is that people will not create value unless they have the possibility of economic gain. The claim may or may not be true but, if it turns out not to be true, then the capitalist mode of competition indeed ends up having little value. Would you agree?