Re: Collectives II

Nobody asked but …

My Kentucky Wildcat basketball team lost in a close contest to Michigan State last night.  These are two of the teams considered most likely to play for the National Championship in the early Spring of 2014.  So a statist may have observed my tirade against collectives and responded with, “you are a fanboy of a team (collective) sport.  With 8 National Championships at the University of Kentucky, surely you see that great things can be accomplished by teams?”  To which I respond, “don’t call me Shirley!”  But here’s the real deal.  Basketball is played by teams because that is an imposed obstacle to increase the unpredictability of the game.  Would you pay $40 to watch one player, even LeBron James, shoot baskets?  Would you even sit still to watch LeBron James play every other NBA player one-on-one to find out who is best?  Games are played by teams because it adds complexity and degree of difficulty, and interest.  To be sure, a given team may be able to perform as a team better than any other team.  In fact, the season long champion may play an all-star team, and with sufficient incentive, make the all-stars look like chopped liver.  But my real point is that the specialization of skills on a basketball team is part of a centrally planned environment.  The specialization of production that arises, in self-organization, in a free market, is achieved by voluntaryist individuals — individuals are free to choose or invent specialties amid an unlimited set of opportunities.


Save as PDFPrint

Written by