Romantic Competition

[NIJamesHughes]

When a business has no competitor’s because of government action it because a monopoly. Several things happen when this occurs. Service and quality go down. Prices go up. This is because a monopoly does not have to try to gain new customer’s or keep the ones it has; they are guaranteed patronage since no competition exists to take their business. A monopoly has no values.

Competition prohibits the establishment of a monopoly. When businesses compete with one another for customers prices go down, quality and service goes up – the business values their customers. It seeks to gain or keep them by appealing to their needs. Under the pressure of competition business’s seek to do as much for their customers not as little as they can get away with.

The results are the same when you apply the principle of competition to another field, relationships. If a relationship is closed (by marriage or unconditional exclusivity) there is no competition and thus there is no pressure to provide value. Thus the same effects of an economic monopoly set in to a romantic monopoly. When a partner thinks the other is “committed” they will not do what would otherwise be required in a competitive situation. New partners will go to great lengths to be appealing to their prospect, knowing that if they can not satisfy his or her needs and wants (that is be of value) a competitor will. The point at which the relationship becomes closed (though marriage or other agreement’s) both partners will exert less effort to be of value to the other, knowing explicitly or implicitly that they have “cornered the market,” the same way workers under a guarantee pay system independent of their performance will always be less productive.

In a free market the most attractive individual, withing the context of a particular prospects values will win out, that is they will successfully enter into a romantic relationship. In this case all competitors strive to be and do their best, as defined by their partners values, in order to earn their business. In a romantic monopoly, however, the partners will do as little as the other will let them get away with, which leads to mutual dissatisfaction and eventual separation.

The solution to the monopoly problem in economics is deregulation, to open the market to competition. And thus giving value back to the customers. Once again the best business and their customers benefit from the pressure of competition because of higher profit, lower prices, and better quality and services.

In the same way a when relationships are open to competition all parties profit, with both doing as much as possible to them to be of value to the other. They constantly seek to make the other happy, resolve conflicts as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Marriage then is not the solution to the happiness of couples, rather it is the pressure of losing a value.

[stephen_speicher]

The results are the same when you apply the principle of competition to another field, relationships. If a relationship is closed (by marriage or unconditional exclusivity) there is no competition and thus there is no pressure to provide value. Thus the same effects of an economic monopoly set in to a romantic monopoly.

This is the fallacy of false analogy.

[DJames]

It is true that once you're newly-wed, there is a chance you'll slip things into neutral and make things sour. Especially in the first year/couple years. But after a while that's going to put your relationship through a "rough patch".. repeatedly.. and you'll learn that you cannot just get complacent with your marriage. Marriage doesn't remove the competition at all... that's an assumption that will get any marriage in deep trouble. I can't think of a woman I ever knew (worth marrying) that didn't have a bunch of guys waiting in the wings.

[NIJamesHughes]

This is the fallacy of false analogy.

Care to validate your claim?

[NIJamesHughes]

It is true that once you're newly-wed, there is a chance you'll slip things into neutral and make things sour.  Especially in the first year/couple years.  But after a while that's going to put your relationship through a "rough patch".. repeatedly.. and you'll learn that you cannot just get complacent with your marriage.  Marriage doesn't remove the competition at all... that's an assumption that will get any marriage in deep trouble.  I can't think of a woman I ever knew (worth marrying) that didn't have a bunch of guys waiting in the wings.

True marriage doesn't remove competition from relationships anymore than gov. regulation removes it from business (think of speculators). But tha is what is designed to do.

[stephen_speicher]

Care to validate your claim?

The two classes you are analogizing are incommensurate.

[NIJamesHughes]

Care to validate your claim?

The two classes you are analogizing are incommensurate.

I have accurately demonstrated that the concept of competition applies to each. Thus they are not incommensurate.

[DJames]

There is a way to "undo" the marriage. Its called divorce. A marriage is not a set of handcuffs.. it is a symbol of love, and commitment, that indicates you intend to spend the rest of your days with this person. There's a vow that you say "to love and to cherish", if you slip things into neutral, then you've broken your vow, and its grounds for divorce.

[NIJamesHughes]

There is a way to "undo" the marriage.  Its called divorce.  A marriage is not a set of handcuffs.. it is a symbol of love, and commitment, that indicates you intend to spend the rest of your days with this person.  There's a vow that you say "to love and to cherish", if you slip things into neutral, then you've broken your vow, and its grounds for divorce.

Right, but the point is that non-competitive nature of marriage "till death do us part for better or worse even if you chop my face off" causes stagnation which leads to divorce. It is not just coincidence that 50-60% of all marriage ends in divorce.

[DJames]

"For better or for worse" doesn't mean you can chop their face off, or ignore them for the rest of your life. That contradicts that "to love and to cherish" part, which is also a very important promise of marriage. I will say this, I have seen marriages where the people in them also had that misconception - on Divorce Court.

[Dominique]

This is the fallacy of false analogy.

I agree, and it seems also to be a fallacy of package-dealing.

Ayn Rand said (Conflict of Men's Intrests- VOS, 65; pb 55) love is not an issue of competition-being a value, and as such would not be influenced one way or the other by the government's supposed attempt to remove competition, even if that was what marriage was "designed" for, and would not be benefitted by remaining open to competition. Competition does not add to a relationship, value adds to a relationship, value for the other person and for love and other mutual aspirations. But marriage is not the same as the government involvement in business. It is more like the legislative protection of partners in a partnership.

[stephen_speicher]

I have accurately demonstrated that the concept of competition applies to each.

No, you have not, which is why it is a fallacy. But, I repeat myself, which is more than this argument is worth.

[AwakeAndFree]

Woah, man.

This is the most ridiculous claim I've heard so far on this forum, and that's saying a lot!

You are totally ignoring the issue of love. If you love your wife, you will still do anything you can to make her happy. And that should be the reason from the start, not some silly competition.

More than that, I think it's incredibly dishonest to do something while dating that you will not be willing to do while married.

[tommyedison]

Right, but the point is that non-competitive nature of marriage "till death do us part for better or worse even if you chop my face off" causes stagnation which leads to divorce. It is not just coincidence that 50-60% of all marriage ends in divorce.

Divorce rate has increased because of bad philosophy (worsened by the '60s generation) and increasing facility in obtaining a divorce, not because of "non-competitive" marriage.

[foofalah]

Commitment doesn't mean "I'll be with you no matter what." It simply means a commitment not to bolt out the door at the sign of any minor problem.

If I'm in a non-committed relationship (i.e. dating) and I notice a continuing, though minor, problem (maybe she refuses to wax her ear hair or something), I feel comfortable leaving, with no explanation, and on the assumption that it is only a casual relationship and there are plenty of other women who I might like better and who don't present this problem.

A committed relationship is founded on the presumption that a person provides so much value to you that you both regard it as worth the effort to work through minor troubles.

The above, I contend, is what most people actually mean when they speak of 'unconditional love'. It's an unfortunate choice of words, but I think all they want is some confidence that you aren't going stop loving them after a bad haircut. (Of course, some people really desire a love that is literally unconditional..and that's just stupid.)

And there is always competition in committed relationships. The second that problems severely outweigh the benefits, and you have given up hope of amelioration, you figure on getting out of it. Also, if you and your mate don't continue to do things to attract each other, you'll eventually get bored and leave. Committed couples break up all the time.

If you don't feel *comfortable* with a committed relationship, that's a different issue. Just don't try and rationalize it with psuedo-philosophical chicanery.

EDITED TO ADD:

Just an afterthought. How good would you feel about a relationship in which your girlfriend said to you, "Honey I slept with a guy from work because he bought me flowers today and you didn't. That's cool right? Also, I know we had plans to go to Outback Steakhouse tonight, but this guy on the bus offered to bring me to Chez Louis. So either up your offer or I'll be in his bed tonight."

Is that really what you want?

And not to be impertinent, but do you really want to stand naked in a lineup with 4 other guys with your girlfriend wielding a ruler and a clipboard?

That's really what your post means.

[foofalah]

Also...blank lines between paragraphs would be a bonus.

[KevinD]

Please see my earlier post on rationalism and romantic love.

Any time you find yourself saying "thus" a lot when talking about human relationships, check yourself. Odds are you're locked air-tight inside your own head.

At the very least, you're not looking at the aspect of reality you need to. If you want to learn about human relationships, you begin by looking at the nature of such relationships. Not radios, or bookbinding, or the winter Olympics — or government monopolies.

That said, there's a kind of sense to what you're saying. Many people do "get lazy" once they're settled down, especially men. A lot of men hold the attitude, "I got her. I know she loves me. I don't have to do anything to keep her." They think of marriage as a kind of unchangeable state. They resist any suggestions that their wife is unhappy and the marriage is in trouble — they insist that "everything's fine"— and they're usually only shocked out of their complacency and their easy chair when the woman gets fed up, and either threatens divorce or actually leaves.

Many men (and I'm sure women, too) have had to learn the very hard way just how open to competition they are. The good news is that the mere fact that you and your partner have a history and a relationship together is one major value that no dashing new rival can hope to match — provided, of course, that said history and relationship is a happy and fulfilling one.

This is why I say, time and again, that love is a process. In our instant-gratification, range-of-the-split-second age, we want everything NOW — and men in particular tend to rush into relationships, only to see them fall apart just as quickly.

It takes time to build a relationship, and it takes constant thought and effort to maintain one.

[Inspector]

You are totally ignoring the issue of love. If you love your wife, you will still do anything you can to make her happy. And that should be the reason from the start, not some silly competition.

This right here is the most direct and complete refutation yet posted here. And this is what Stephen is getting at, I believe. Economic competition cannot be equated with romantic competition because they do not seek comparable ends. A company seeks to beat his competitors. A (proper) man seeks to love his wife and make her happy, not just to beat out other men. THAT is why the analogy is invalid.

Also, it appears you reached this mental territory through rationalism. You might want to watch out for that.

[knuckles]

Analogies are just that: analogies. They are not a form of reasoning. It is a fallacy to substitute analogy (ANY analogy) for reasoning.

That said, I do not think the original analogy is far-fetched in the least. A contractual agreement solidifies a relationship. Unfortunately, it also creates an impediment to breaking the relatiuonship. Sometimes, this can be abused by one party taking the relationship "for granted". This can happen in any legal relationship (e.g. a business relationship). It happens every day.

Also, it happens in marriage all the time.

Ofcourse, it is not necessary nor rational for this to happen.

[NIJamesHughes]

Please see my earlier post on rationalism and romantic love.

Any time you find yourself saying "thus" a lot when talking about human relationships, check yourself. Odds are you're locked air-tight inside your own head.

At the very least, you're not looking at the aspect of reality you need to. If you want to learn about human relationships, you begin by looking at the nature of such relationships. Not radios, or bookbinding, or the winter Olympics — or government monopolies.

That said, there's a kind of sense to what you're saying. Many people do "get lazy" once they're settled down, especially men. A lot of men hold the attitude, "I got her. I know she loves me. I don't have to do anything to keep her." They think of marriage as a kind of unchangeable state. They resist any suggestions that their wife is unhappy and the marriage is in trouble — they insist that "everything's fine"— and they're usually only shocked out of their complacency and their easy chair when the woman gets fed up, and either threatens divorce or actually leaves.

Many men (and I'm sure women, too) have had to learn the very hard way just how open to competition they are. The good news is that the mere fact that you and your partner have a history and a relationship together is one major value that no dashing new rival can hope to match — provided, of course, that said history and relationship is a happy and fulfilling one.

This is why I say, time and again, that love is a process. In our instant-gratification, range-of-the-split-second age, we want everything NOW — and men in particular tend to rush into relationships, only to see them fall apart just as quickly.

It takes time to build a relationship, and it takes constant thought and effort to maintain one.

This is what i was getting at: That everything is open to competition, not that competition is an end in itself. The point was that a relationship requires constant effort to maintain it, or else someone who does put out the effort, will. Or if both people lack any motivation at all, they will both be miserable.

That being said, i did mean that what i wrote was the "idea" situation, or how relationships are supposed to work, its just how i have seen it happen.

[y_feldblum]

Care to validate your claim?

You came to a conclusion in contradiction with reality. When you check your premises, you should find some premise that is not correct. Since your only premise seems to be that marriage is like political monopoly, I would venture that it's the one at fault.

[NIJamesHughes]

You came to a conclusion in contradiction with reality. When you check your premises, you should find some premise that is not correct. Since your only premise seems to be that marriage is like political monopoly, I would venture that it's the one at fault.

I wasn't trying to say anything about marriage, specifically. The theme of the article was the role of competition in relationships. I mean that if a relationship is closed to competition, regardless of the value the individuals provide to each other, or the value others could provide, the effects of a monopoly set it: poorer service, inferior products, and higher prices than could normally be found on an open market.

An example of the correct way to maintain a relationship in which competition is guiding factor is the case of Dagny, Rearden and Galt. Dagny left Rearden (who was a great person) for Galt (who was even better).

An example of the condition I was refering to (which can be witnessed with newlyweds vs. one or two year marriages or relationships) would be where Dagny stays with Rearden, even though she would rather have Galt. You can imagine what effect this would have on a relationship, but it happens all the time in the name of loyalty or committment or just plain laziness.

Like I said the article is a rough draft, and I realize now that i presented it wrongly. It comes off as a "this is how life is supposed to be," instead of "this is how it can go wrong under these conditions" article.

I do apreciate the comments, they have helped clarify the issue.

[Montesquieu]

When a business has no competitor’s because of government action it because a monopoly. Several things happen when this occurs. Service and quality go down. Prices go up. This is because a monopoly does not have to try to gain new customer’s or keep the ones it has; they are guaranteed patronage since no competition exists to take their business. A monopoly has no values.

Competition prohibits the establishment of a monopoly. When businesses compete with one another for customers prices go down, quality and service goes up – the business values their customers. It seeks to gain or keep them by appealing to their needs. Under the pressure of competition business’s seek to do as much for their customers not as little as they can get away with.

Monopolies can occur in a free market, and it will not produce the results in service and quality that you claim. The thing a government does is prevent entry into a market by granting a license or franchise and then forcibly prohibiting competitors from challenging the monopoly. This assurance of permanence creates a drop off in quality and service. A free-market monopoly, or near-monopoly as a 100% monopoly is highly unlikely, has to always worry about new entrants into the market if they price too highly above the market price or let their service go to hell.

It was the idea that monopolies would always act in a price raising, quality lowering way, regardless of whether they occurred through competence or governmental favor, that allowed anti-trust legislation and numerous other regulatory acts against big business to become law. It's not monopolies one should fear, it is the use of laws to create barriers to entry, creating in effect a pseudo-private government style company with all that goes along with such management.

Marriage functions similarly. Men and Women have a perfectly legal option to dissolve their contract if they think it is not working out and pursue more valuable relationships. While you may subscribe to a monopoly of love voluntarily there is a legal way to extricate yourself from it. This is not the case with a franchised monopoly where you are forced into a relationship with one seller with no alternatives. It would be equivalent to the government telling you whom to marry and making sure that you couldn't stray or cheat (which in franchised-monopoly parlance is smuggling). Since this is clearly not the case I must agree with Stephen and say these two subjects are disanalogous, at least in the way you originally presented it seeing as your concept of monopoly was incomplete.

[NIJamesHughes]

Monopolies can occur in a free market, and it will not produce the results in service and quality that you claim. The thing a government does is prevent entry into a market by granting a license or franchise and then forcibly prohibiting competitors from challenging the monopoly. This assurance of permanence creates a drop off in quality and service. A free-market monopoly, or near-monopoly as a 100% monopoly is highly unlikely, has to always worry about new entrants into the market if they price too highly above the market price or let their service go to hell.

It was the idea that monopolies would always act in a price raising, quality lowering way, regardless of whether they occurred through competence or governmental favor, that allowed anti-trust legislation and numerous other regulatory acts against big business to become law. It's not monopolies one should fear, it is the use of laws to create barriers to entry, creating in effect a pseudo-private government style company with all that goes along with such management.

Marriage functions similarly. Men and Women have a perfectly legal option to dissolve their contract if they think it is not working out and pursue more valuable relationships. While you may subscribe to a monopoly of love voluntarily there is a legal way to extricate yourself from it. This is not the case with a franchised monopoly where you are forced into a relationship with one seller with no alternatives. It would be equivalent to the government telling you whom to marry and making sure that you couldn't stray or cheat (which in franchised-monopoly parlance is smuggling). Since this is clearly not the case I must agree with Stephen and say these two subjects are disanalogous, at least in the way you originally presented it seeing as your concept of monopoly was incomplete.

"When a business has no competitor’s because of government action it becomes a monopoly."

This is the monopoly that i was refering to.