I feel Mises’ went askew with his thought process. He understandbly notices those who work non-violently will outdo those who work violently with one another. However he just labels the process. Hence the article essentially says: “cooperating = good, fighting = bad; cooperation is called the “free market”, violence is called the “government”; therefore the “free market is good” and “government is bad”. Naturally this does nothing than explain how Libertarians view the free market and the government.

The real question should be “why do people think using violence is better than working together (or at least leaving other people alone)?” The answer, I believe, may be found in the Prisoners Dilemma” Yes, people could get further ahead by cooperating however people get somewhat ahead with violence.

One online working I can’t help but think demonstrates this is Grifball on Halo 3 online. Two teams of four players each try to get the bomb in the opponent’s goal place. There are five rounds with a time limit and the winning team members get 2 exp and the losers get none. If there’s a tie then both teams get 2 experience points. Therefore if each team let the opposing team win 2 rounds apiece then for the final round just let the clock run out and it’s a tie than all the players would rank up fast. Yet what happens? Each team battles it out and the chances of a tie are rare. In reality one team get the two experience points and the other team walks away with nothing.

Hence by ruthless competing with one another all the players are worse than would be if they just cooperated however using violence still gets results (for the winners) . . .