Dumping – positive perspective

Dumping is generally taken as negative side effect of liberal economy and free trade. Without some kind of state supervision certain agents might enter the market with prices that go below what is expected to be fair price and form with that a kind of unfair competition.

But what happens if we take dumping from evolutionary perspective. Better: we should understood dumping from evolutionary perspective. If we understand dumping as a possible business strategy (evolutionary strategy) like we understand that skunks use strong odor liquid as weapon and chameleons use color changes for protection, then we should understand that any imposed human law that would protect us from dumping actions of various market players is unnatural and harmful. Each of us has to develop a strategy against dumping (in the case that we are not the ones that use dumping strategy, of course) since finding ways how to produce more for lower costs is in fact evolutionary driving force. Should there exist some natural authority that would provide calf shelter against unfair fast leopards, all known biodiversity disappears.

Fortunately (and unfortunately for some) human evolution including evolution of inventions, legislation and civil rights follow similar rules. Any protective “objective” shelter immediately suppress development on any segment of our civilization. This means that public tendering authorities  for instance should finally accept that there is no law that can protect any public body (anybody) from the responsibility to choose a strategy against any act of a living being that is exposed to (part of) market environment. There exists no algorithm (law) that would excuse a man from a decision whether to accept certain offer or not. There is no measurement that would relieve a man from a decision whether certain offer is coming from dumping strategy or not. Public procurement systems that live in a fiction that they have implemented a solid system that can relieve a man from being responsible for a decision are producing worst results for procurement bodies, for providers and for society at large.

I do trust myself when I decide weather to accept certain offer or not. A man empowered to take a decision in the name of certain community should be trusted to take a right decision. That we as a civil society think, that there can be a law protecting us from a malfunctioned decision maker is one of most terrible mistakes. With this (mistake) we say to each decision maker that we in fact do not trust him. If we do not trust him, why did we choose him o her in the first place to take decisions in our name? Should he know that he has no place to hide (behind rules and regulations), he would behave more responsible. He would enact homonism.

This does not mean that we as society do not need any law to regulate our lives. We should only avoid those law enforcements that pretend to regulate life (market behavior) since there is no effective law even theoretically possible to regulate life. We should avoid such law enforcements since they give us false excuse to avoid our personal responsibility for acts on a market, for acts in life.

Andrej Drapal