Skip to main content
Competitism -- a form of government based around the idea that competition is good. In general, the goal is to promote competition wherever possible, and intervene when it has become unbalanced for some reason.

In all circumstances, those who are winning bear the greater share of the burden. That is, if you are rich you pay more taxes, if you are better known you carry more public duties. That levels the playing field somewhat, as those trying to pull away from the rest, must go way beyond their abilities. The opposite is also true, if you are poor, you pay no tax, you get lots of help. The systems seeks to keep the gaming going as long as possible, and to balance it as needed.

In any case where competition is no long viable, whether because there are not enough players or collusion has occurred, the government must step in to regulate the circumstance. They must in some way restore competition, at least to the remaining players.

And finally, "caveat emptor" is no longer valid. The buyers are not on the hook to be smart, as cheating them is a way of cheating the game itself. Anyone finding a way around the rules by abusing their customers for example, must carry an extra weight as a consequence. Competition to be valuable has to be fair and honest competition, otherwise it degenerates into something ugly (a principle we hold to in forums like the Olympics).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Human-Oriented Dynamics To model our larger behavior as organizations, we need some irrationally motivated, inconsistent system, that in it's lack of completeness manages to predictably move around the same territory that we do. A system completely opposite in nature to a mathematically formal system, yet one sufficiently expressive enough to be able to draw conclusions from its changes in different states. People are neither logical nor rational, and when they operate in larger and larger groups, these inconsistencies manifest into larger patterns within the over-all interactions. The rules make no sense, yet they shouldn't make sense. These are a few basic principles (of an infinite number of them): The Opposition Principle: For anything that someone can do, someone else will attempt to do the opposite. The Path Principle: To force something along a prescribed path, there must be at least two balancing forces at work. The Ease Principle: People will always take the easiest...
2 comments
Read more
Gravitational Ramblings I was never really interested in physics, preferring instead the more pure branches of mathematics. Given that, much of what I'll say in this little discussion is probably already out there or just total nonsense, still just in case it isn't, I figured I just write it down. You never know, it's a strange world. I was watching a newly published lecture series with the eminent Richard Feynman. He said a couple of things that I had already learned about gravity, but I found fascinating anyways. The first was that Copernicus found that the planets traveled in a ellipse, with the sun being in the focal point. Quite well, known, but the relevance of the sun's position never really dawned on me before. Another thing he talked about was the measurements for a system far away, but the star's position wasn't at the focal point in the ellipse, he pointed out that this was because we were viewing the system from an angle. The final bit that I found i...
3 comments
Read more