Modern society is composed of some groups whose conduct rightly includes the use of force, and other groups that engage in trade—while a single group that deals in both can be very dangerous. This week we are exploring the Systems of Action of these two types of groups, and the principles that make up those systems.
Yesterday, we introduced the Guardian system. Today we'll focus on the Commercial system.
The Second System
Think of a small neighborhood shop. The employees should be ready to do business with anyone who walks in, and must maintain a reputation of honesty with both suppliers and customers. The store must continually improve, or the other stores will lure away its customers. A small business owner does not have a lot of free time and must work efficiently.
Commercial principles are appropriate for business and trade, which seek to increase value to all parties involved. Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Innovation and efficiency are more useful than tradition, and the use of force is severely frowned on.
If one person has a surplus of wheat, and another has a surplus of eggs, they will both be better off if they trade. This is a positive-sum transaction, and the creation of value is what drives commerce. Commercial principles include, “Be honest”, “Be thrifty”, “Compete”, and “Respect contracts”. The more closely a commercial organization follows these ideals, the more trading it can engage in and the richer it will become. Commercial principles also include, “Shun force”. This is good advice for companies that must focus on competing in the marketplace; coercion is not a good way to build productive trading relationships.
Trust is important in commerce, even between competing companies; by contrast, competing Guardian organizations frequently are enemies and cannot afford to trust each other. It is obvious that the principles of these organizations are different: buying products is appropriate, while buying pardons is not.
What is less obvious at first is that although these systems can coexist harmoniously, they are incompatible within the same organization. Many centuries of development have created distinct traditions and expectations for each kind of task. There are strong reasons why sets of principles should not be mixed, and why each system should be applied only to the tasks it is suited for. History has shown what happens when this advice is ignored; the failure of the Soviet economy is one example.
Tomorrow we'll describe a third system that involves neither force nor trade, but information.