But if Phil is right, it seems to follow that freedom is practicable only in conditions other than those of scarcity that when resources are scarce, free markets break down. If this is true, it seems to undermine the entire tradition of free-market thought. To do this I shall employ two strategies. First, I shall try to argue that the assumption that primitive economies were zero-sum depends on considering only material gains and not spiritual ones. But this conclusion assumes that the person who coerces others in order to survive really is better off than the person who remains cooperative and dies.
Quality of life is more important for our well-being than quantity of life.
Taking a moral attitude of respect and cooperativeness toward others is a prerequisite of a high quality of life. And if this is so, then personal gain would not have to come at the expense of others, and society would no longer be zero-sum. The three dominant religions of ancient India were Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. All three religions adopted the doctrine of ahimsa , non-injury an ethic that strongly favored cooperation over exploitation. But the other two religions applied the doctrine of ahimsa more consistently, with Buddhism rejecting the caste system, and Jainism adopting a thoroughgoing position of nonviolence.