>>12155626Everything is already owned by someone, there is nothing unclaimed remaining, and so it's much more difficult to work by yourself, for yourself, without making others richer in the process.
>But making others richer as a consequence of making yourself richer is a good thingThis only applies in cultures where people actually like each other. If everyone thinks everyone else is a cunt, then nobody wants to make others better off as a side-effect of their work, because this is just giving advantage to the enemy.
During times of peace, a transaction that results in group A making $1 profit and group B making $10 profit benefits A and B, even if it benefits B more.
During times of war, a transaction that results in group A making $1 profit and group B making $10 profit benefits B at the expense of A.
The greater the internal tensions within a society, the more it resembles a warlike economy, where people instinctively focus in relative gains rather than absolute gains.
This is also a huge part of why monogamy, laws against violence, etc were almost universally selected for in high functioning societies. Competition based on relative standards => warlike economic mindset => focus on where you stand relative to others over where you stand in the absolute => social dysfunction.
Competition for food, water, etc doesn't create this problem, because the threshold is absolute - healthy people don't need to "keep up" with obese people, etc - and this means that people competition incentivizes more production and lower prices.
Competition in violence, sex, etc don't work like this, because the threshold is relative - less attractive people need to keep up with more attractive people, people with knives need to keep up with people with guns, etc.
The more deregulated the "relative economies" such as violence and sex are, the more people will begin to adopt a warlike economic attitude where they focus on equality and inequality over their absolute position.