NOT INDIVIDUAL BUT GROUP SELFISHNESS IS THE CHIEF THREAT
The main threat to the market order comes from organized groups rather than individual monopolists or companies. Government support has allowed these groups to suppress individual actions that would usually keep their power in check. It's not the size of individual firms that's concerning, but rather how these firms have come together for collective interests. This organization has begun to hinder the natural workings of the market, as groups pressure the government to regulate the market to benefit them.
The rise of labor unions has brought attention to this issue, as their methods, initially accepted due to sympathy for workers, may undermine free society. The term "freedom of organization" sounds good, associated with both labor movements and democratic processes, but it can conflict with the rule of law essential for a free society. While individuals should have freedom, including freedom of contract, organized groups should not operate without rules. The advanced organization techniques give these groups power that may need stricter legal limits than those placed on individuals.
Individuals often feel stronger within a group, but this strength can lead to greater oppression rather than benefit. The belief that larger groups better represent everyone's interests is misleading; in fact, small, well-organized groups can hold more influence. Organized interests often conflict with individual needs, making it harder for individuals to defend their various interests against the interests of other groups.
Public opinion incorrectly suggests that the larger a group is, the more closely its interests align with societal interests. However, the selfish actions of organized groups often work against the greater good of society. While individual actions may typically help maintain social order, the closed nature of organized groups can harm community interests. Classical economics and modern analysis have shown that individual contributions to society’s needs are crucial, and that the collective interests of a group further complicate this dynamic.
Negotiations between organized groups fail to account for individuals who could shift between groups to adjust to changes. Existing groups tend to resist allowing new members, thus harming overall efficiency. Producers often argue they can meet demand at certain prices but do not consider that newcomers could supply goods at lower prices, benefiting consumers. Consequently, established producers might resist changes that would bring improvement to the market.
Ultimately, if all groups become fully organized, it could freeze the economy in a faulty structure, leading to decline. The current partial organization in Western economies is what keeps them viable; complete organization would likely create a rigid system unable to adapt without forceful intervention.
The main threat to the market order comes from organized groups rather than individual monopolists or companies. Government support has allowed these groups to suppress individual actions that would usually keep their power in check. It's not the size of individual firms that's concerning, but rather how these firms have come together for collective interests. This organization has begun to hinder the natural workings of the market, as groups pressure the government to regulate the market to benefit them.
The rise of labor unions has brought attention to this issue, as their methods, initially accepted due to sympathy for workers, may undermine free society. The term "freedom of organization" sounds good, associated with both labor movements and democratic processes, but it can conflict with the rule of law essential for a free society. While individuals should have freedom, including freedom of contract, organized groups should not operate without rules. The advanced organization techniques give these groups power that may need stricter legal limits than those placed on individuals.
Individuals often feel stronger within a group, but this strength can lead to greater oppression rather than benefit. The belief that larger groups better represent everyone's interests is misleading; in fact, small, well-organized groups can hold more influence. Organized interests often conflict with individual needs, making it harder for individuals to defend their various interests against the interests of other groups.
Public opinion incorrectly suggests that the larger a group is, the more closely its interests align with societal interests. However, the selfish actions of organized groups often work against the greater good of society. While individual actions may typically help maintain social order, the closed nature of organized groups can harm community interests. Classical economics and modern analysis have shown that individual contributions to society’s needs are crucial, and that the collective interests of a group further complicate this dynamic.
Negotiations between organized groups fail to account for individuals who could shift between groups to adjust to changes. Existing groups tend to resist allowing new members, thus harming overall efficiency. Producers often argue they can meet demand at certain prices but do not consider that newcomers could supply goods at lower prices, benefiting consumers. Consequently, established producers might resist changes that would bring improvement to the market.
Ultimately, if all groups become fully organized, it could freeze the economy in a faulty structure, leading to decline. The current partial organization in Western economies is what keeps them viable; complete organization would likely create a rigid system unable to adapt without forceful intervention.