Cooperation among human beings
Mises introduces this chapter with the notion that “society is the outcome of conscious and purposeful behavior” (143). We know that every individual acts in order to attain certain ends, and society emerged because of the same reason of that, of acting individuals who found that the division of labor was more useful, and efficient to attain their individual ends. It struck me the fact that we have come together in a society to remove our individual uneasiness, not because we wanted to be friends with other people. Actually, those sentiments and relationships emerged thanks to the division of labor, “they are the fruits of social cooperation” (144). What surprised me even more was the fact that without division of labor we’ll be enemies fighting with each other to survive or to be better off. It’s important to remark that society is purposeful cooperation, which means that is an outcome of human action to attain certain ends.
A human that belongs in a society is accepting and willing to sacrifice something in order to have a greater gain later. “For the adjustment of the individual to the requirements of social cooperation demands sacrifices. These are, it is true, only temporary and apparent sacrifices as they are more than compensated for by the incomparably greater advantages which living within society provides. However, at the instant, in the very act of renouncing an expected enjoyment they are painful, and it is not for everybody to realize their later benefits and to behave accordingly” (148).
There are many challenges the individuals that belong to society face: safety and private property. Who is going to take care of what? There are many currents and point of views that defend different ideas on how to manage it. Anarchism says that the ideal is a social order, in which individuals don’t have privileges at the expense of others, a social order without state or government. However, Mises say that an anarchist society will be exposed to be at the mercy of every individual, which is nonsensical to do when we haven’t attained the majority from destroying the social order. Liberal Social doctrine defends that the majority rules the minority (system of government), which means that the government ought to do what the majority wants. “It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government to the will of the majority”. (150). The liberals believe that the ones better fitted to do the task should rule the nation, however that cannot be guaranteed. Universalism and Collectivism defend that there’s an existence of a power beyond humans that establishes certain laws. “If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual’s actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being”. (151). Finally, the pseudo-liberals “aim at a political constitution which safeguards the smooth working of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of mutual social relations”. (153).
In a nutshell, the liberals think that the majority of human beings want to live a life without uneasiness. “They are prompted by a passionate ardor for intellectual and moral perfection, for wisdom and for aesthetic excellence”. (154). They say that individuals in a society can reach this state if society itself provides a peaceful environment, in which social cooperation can take place. They are not against God or religion, on the contrary, they allow everyone preach what they want unmolested.
The Ricardian Law of Association is “advantageous for the better endowed area to concentrate its efforts upon the production of those commodities for which its superiority is greater, and to leave to the less endows are the production of other goods in which its own superiority is less”. (159). What I understand about this law is basically that individuals who cooperate with one another will be better off, i.e. both parties will gain something. Actually, there’s higher productivity under the division of labor.
Society is beneficial to an individual, in fact “society is an essential condition of any plans and individual may want to realize by any action whatever”. (165) “Society is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner’s success as a means for the attainment of his own”. (169) I think that if everyone understood that division of labor is benefitting all the individuals in a society, there wouldn’t be disagreements or different views.
A human that belongs in a society is accepting and willing to sacrifice something in order to have a greater gain later. “For the adjustment of the individual to the requirements of social cooperation demands sacrifices. These are, it is true, only temporary and apparent sacrifices as they are more than compensated for by the incomparably greater advantages which living within society provides. However, at the instant, in the very act of renouncing an expected enjoyment they are painful, and it is not for everybody to realize their later benefits and to behave accordingly” (148).
There are many challenges the individuals that belong to society face: safety and private property. Who is going to take care of what? There are many currents and point of views that defend different ideas on how to manage it. Anarchism says that the ideal is a social order, in which individuals don’t have privileges at the expense of others, a social order without state or government. However, Mises say that an anarchist society will be exposed to be at the mercy of every individual, which is nonsensical to do when we haven’t attained the majority from destroying the social order. Liberal Social doctrine defends that the majority rules the minority (system of government), which means that the government ought to do what the majority wants. “It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government to the will of the majority”. (150). The liberals believe that the ones better fitted to do the task should rule the nation, however that cannot be guaranteed. Universalism and Collectivism defend that there’s an existence of a power beyond humans that establishes certain laws. “If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual’s actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being”. (151). Finally, the pseudo-liberals “aim at a political constitution which safeguards the smooth working of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of mutual social relations”. (153).
In a nutshell, the liberals think that the majority of human beings want to live a life without uneasiness. “They are prompted by a passionate ardor for intellectual and moral perfection, for wisdom and for aesthetic excellence”. (154). They say that individuals in a society can reach this state if society itself provides a peaceful environment, in which social cooperation can take place. They are not against God or religion, on the contrary, they allow everyone preach what they want unmolested.
The Ricardian Law of Association is “advantageous for the better endowed area to concentrate its efforts upon the production of those commodities for which its superiority is greater, and to leave to the less endows are the production of other goods in which its own superiority is less”. (159). What I understand about this law is basically that individuals who cooperate with one another will be better off, i.e. both parties will gain something. Actually, there’s higher productivity under the division of labor.
Society is beneficial to an individual, in fact “society is an essential condition of any plans and individual may want to realize by any action whatever”. (165) “Society is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner’s success as a means for the attainment of his own”. (169) I think that if everyone understood that division of labor is benefitting all the individuals in a society, there wouldn’t be disagreements or different views.