People are right to want to avoid competition. The issue is that in a system that pushes competition hard on individuals, the only way to avoid it is to prevent accomplishment.

The fundamental issue is that our system is built in such a way that one person's accomplishment is another person's loss.

> The fundamental issue is that our system is built in such a way that one person's accomplishment is another person's loss.

Can you give some examples of this? The first that comes to mind is patent law.

e.g. the bonus budget a manager has to share among their reports.

I've always found the argument for competition rather funny. It seems as though most of us have grown up, not necessarily but at least with the idea, of the "loving family" in mind.

That in order for a child to grow and achieve their full potential they have to be loved and supported by everyone in their family; this means brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, grandmothers, etc.

How is it that the way we structure the core social organisation in our grand societies is so at odds with the way we structure the broader structures? Not only that, but if you look at a classroom; what is the best for children? Encouraging hyper competition or collaboration between classmates? What is the best inside a business, collaboration or competition? What is the best for our governments, collaboration between the different branches or competition?

It seems as though everywhere we look at, we go "yes, people in an organisation have to collaborate with other!" from families to governments... yet... an organisation of organisations (a society) is in turn better served through competition?

We developed these massive societies to overcome the need for competition, but sometimes I feel like this ethos is being turned against us and that some people want us to return to a state of being where everyone is out for themselves in a cruel world that is filled with dangers. And I don't understand why.

How would you know whether one thing id better than the other without testing them- having them compete against each other? Most e.g. products you could make are a waste, and figuring out what should be made and how much of it is a very non-trivial problem.

If someone invests their money in your company they wont want you giving your new invention to someone else to profit from. Also basically impossible to coordinate things without prices. Seems like a good way for people to get taken advantage of and for massive inefficiencies to go undiscovered.

Same in general for companies. Internally, they are essentially tiny quasi-Communist (and generally secretive, isolationist and rather totalitarian) states complete with their own politburos, centralised top-down control and, theoretically, a common goal for all departments, the penalty for not buying into being exile.

This changes pretty abruptly at the boundary of the company into almost the exact opposite: a marketplace where it's every company for themselves, there's no common goal, and resources, money and ideas both, are jealously hoarded by each entity behind thick silo walls.

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but it's interesting how we're supposed to simultaneously operate in a much-vaunted capitalist context, but mostly interface to it through a thick layer of, basically, socialist systems.

Can you elaborate on how avoiding competition is the root of much evil? It is plausible if you mean it as avoiding by stifling or suppressing it.

On the other hand, I believe that competition, broadly construed, is the root of evil (competition is for losers). The more we can not compete with each other, but rather support each other in our own personal endeavors, the better.

Whenever the incumbent seeks to maintain their position by means other than performance - I think the reference is to e.g. large companies closing down, in an effort to keep revenue streams (think vendor locking, kickbacks, back room board deals, nepotism).

There is certainly harm here, but I agree it's not all about competition - if the incumbent shares their knowledge and resources with others then, while revenue streams might go down for, more people will benefit and as a whole revenue streams will go up, or at least be distributed more fairly.

In a zero sum world, companies either avoiding competition or sharing is a burden, in a non zero sum world it is not.

I think ultimately the author is wrong - the idea that ideas can endlessly reap, it ignores the physical world - there are only so many available acres of land and goods at any given time. He dismisses Peak Oil, etc as a misunderstanding about the limits, but the reality is there are many limits, each one with different consequences as it is passed. Thinking the edge of the city is a block away and then discovering you were wrong is not proof that there is no edge to the city, but it does matter that you have to take a car versus walk a block - the limits are still there.

Arguments about peak resources should focus on the average income pressure a citizen is facing, an infinite number of ideas does zip for you if your citizens are too poor or in debt to be able to purchase the fruits of your ideas. Unless you want to start giving away money at a steadily increasing rate...and that has never worked out.

Competition is for losers. Elon Musk isn’t competing with anyone

His corporations absolutely are.

Spacex and Starlink are so far ahead of their “competitors” because Elon is solely focused on what they need to be. He’s never trying to one-up anyone else. Companies who are, are perpetually playing catch-up

"One-upping" is, in my opinion, something very different from competition.

When I am writing my books, I am not trying to one-up anyone, but I still operate in a competitive environment where actions of other players influence both my inputs (paper, printing costs) and outputs (how much can the finished book cost and still be attractive to potential readers).

Same with SpaceX. They fly to space. Some others fly to space too, including some smaller startups like RocketLabs that are nevertheless very vibrant. This has some non-zero influence on SpaceX activity. For example, they want to be a trusted partner of NASA/US Gov, because NASA/US Gov rewards them with launches, even if it does not directly help their stated goal to make life multiplanetary and may even distract from it a bit.