How would you organize a cricket club based on objectivist principles?

sanjay's picture
Submitted by sanjay on Mon, 2005-12-26 05:02

Fellow SOLOists,

It's about 9:30pm here in Colorado on Christmas day. Disregarding the religious nature of the day, in the spirit of the good things it symbolizes, let me say Merry Christmas.

Now to the topic. After trying out a local cricket club and leaving it because it did not fit my needs, I have decided to form a new one here in Louisville, Colorado. I and a friend of mine have worked towards this goal and we are currently in a position to launch it.

The main motivation for starting this new club is to have a facility to play cricket for 'fun.' What I mean by the word 'fun' is this: play the game in a non-competitive way, enjoying the outing and without making a mockery of the game and ourselves. Shall we say, in a 'gentlemanly' way where the old saying 'that's not cricket' will have its true meaning.

We want to form the club in such a way that this spirit will be retained in its functioning and in its organization. What kind of organizational structure would preserve the spirit? I have seen several clubs where the office bearers are elected, but where the direction of the club changes with the current set of officers. So, I am not favoring a blind 'democracy.'

In other words, I am looking for suggestions on applying Objectivist principles for this very practical problem, albeit being one of rather insignificant nature.

I am cross-posting this to the RoR general forum as well.

Sanjay Velamparambil


( categories: )

Boycott?

sanjay's picture

First, Boycott was one of the most boring cricketers to watch:)

No, I disagree with your premise that throwing away one's wicket is a 'sacrifice.' If you agree that the fundamental objective of playing the game is to win (unless you are in a situation like me), if one is batting badly and if it means losing the game, getting out intentionally is not a sacrifice. The greater value, if you will, is the win.

Incidentally, how would you classify the act of the great West Indian fast bowler Courtney Walsh when he refused to run out a Pakistani (I believe) batsman when the latter backed up too far? WI lost the game, I think. But what is ultimately more remembered? Pakistan's win or Walsh's act of sportsmanship? Was he rational?

Sanjay

On a practical note, you

Kenny's picture

On a practical note, you should operate like company - a board of directors acting on behalf of the owners or shareholders. Democracy tends to lead to power struggles and mob rule.

An Objectivist would never

Kenny's picture

An Objectivist would never sacrifice his or her wicket for the benefit of the team! Would Geoff Boycott, who tended to put his average first, be an example of an "Objectivist" cricketer?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.