Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

The Entrepreneurial Individual’s Checklist

/in /by

The entrepreneurial individual is the one best equipped to navigate a pathway through the changing world of work, revenue streams and economic opportunities. Follow these guideposts.

Check your dependency

Are you relying on an employer or an industry for your career? Are you dependent on the hierarchy for the chance to climb up some kind of ladder? Do you feel dependent on any other person, company or institution? Are your opinions your own? Are you your own editor amidst the flood of propaganda? Take a personal audit to make sure none of these dependencies apply. Any that you find, discard them. Authenticity starts with self-efficacy

Who Am I?

Ask yourself the question, “Who Am I?” It’s not an HR question about strengths and weaknesses. Those are concepts manufactured to keep you in your place on the ladder. The important question is a self-assessment of your values. Entrepreneurship is a moral activity – understanding others’ needs and serving them. Valuing others is what will guide your behavior, sustain your drive, and underpin your achievements.

What do I know?

Every one of us has a unique set of knowledge, sharpened by our individual experience and perspective. That’s a starting point. Then think of knowledge not as a fixed stock, but as an activity. Knowledge is acquirable, a renewable resource. Augment yourself with new knowledge every day, and be aware of its unique value. The economics of individual entrepreneurship are based on the value of individual knowledge.

Who Do I Know?

In the old economic world, your history, where you went to school, and which companies were on your resume were the raw materials for an assessment of you by others. Today, all that is irrelevant. Your network is the most important asset. Like knowledge, networking is an activity, and connections can be acquired. The term social networking implies a two-way relationship: you must give in order to receive, and maintain that exchange over time to keep a network relationship. Once you are in that two-way mode of behavior, there are few, if any, network relationships that are closed to you. Be an active networker.

What resources are available?

The entrepreneur asks, “What are my resources?” before asking, “What can I do?” The great difference between the old economic world and the new is that resources are connections rather than high-cost fixed assets. You can download computing power from the cloud, you can engage and manage programming experts anywhere on the globe, you can buy highly specialized services on global exchange platforms, and you can engage experts on global talent portals. Financing can come from private peer-to-peer lending platforms, and office space from incubators or shared work centers. The great skill is to be a super-connector – to be exceptionally good at making, keeping and managing these connections.

How can I contribute?

We live and operate in a service economy. Service means filling a need felt by another, solving a problem encountered by another, or addressing a dissatisfaction that is bothering another. Service is both the creativity and morality of the entrepreneur. You make others’ lives better by filling the need, solving the problem and addressing the satisfaction in a new way that is better than anything previously available. The operative word is “new”. Find your target audience that feels the need, develop the understanding and empathy required to meet it, and establish your niche as the unique provider of a better solution.

How do I fit in?

Ecosystems already exist. Your new solution is never a standalone solution. It needs to be compatible with delivery systems and channels. It may need to meet regulations. It must be easy to understand. It cannot require a huge change in behavior, but rather a better experience resulting from behaviors that consumers have already exhibited.. Your skill at connecting must also include interconnecting to those parts of the ecosystem that will sustain your new solution.

Your goals will emerge.

It may seem odd to you to place goals so low on this list. Isn’t the idea to set goals and then devise the means to accomplish them? In the new world of entrepreneurship, it is OK for initial objectives to be ambiguous. First you understand your own values, then you assess your knowledge, network and resources, and identify where you can contribute and how to fit in. You have become an entrepreneur, which is a lifestyle choice. Don’t worry if the goals, in terms of numbers and time and metrics, are unclear at the outset. You want to work within your resources. You want to find partners. You want to find customers and to please them. Your goals will emerge from this process; don’t stress too much about them at the outset.

Be the happy bearer of uncertainty.

The future is unpredictable. The entrepreneur lives in the future, looking forward to better things based on entrepreneurial sacrifice today. You work without salary, or with borrowed money. Your time preference is long term: your economic reward lies in the uncertain future. If it weren’t for entrepreneurs who feel this way and work this way, we’d have no progress, and we’d experience no improvements. Take joy in the role.

Take charge of your life

The ultimate reward lies in self-reliance. It’s important to recognize what you can and can’t control. You can’t control the economy or interest rates or social change or your competition. But you can control your own entrepreneurial execution, your team selection, your technology choices, and your business model. You can ensure that you operate on the basis of your own values and, if you are building a firm, ensure that those values become the culture of the organization. You can control all of the relationships you have established, at least on your side (and abandon those where the partner does not live up to your standards). There is great reward in controlling the things you can, and ceasing to worry about those you can’t.

There is No Political Freedom Without Economic Freedom

/in /by

Hayek is truly at his best in the seventh chapter of The Road to Serfdom, “Economic Control and Totalitarianism.” In past chapters, he has rationalized moderate state intervention in the economy. But here, we see him destroy the notion that economic control is not directly linked to the rise of tyranny and the loss of individual liberty.

His arguments are so convincing, in part, because he highlights the indisputable fact that everything in our lives is tied to economics.

Rule of Experts

The impact that the field of economics has on our daily lives is not easily recognized by the majority of people. Preoccupied with our immediate needs and daily tasks, the state of the economy not only seems disconnected from our lives, it feels almost completely irrelevant.

And since something as complex as the national economy is usually left to the great “experts” to decide, many also assume that it is an issue completely out of their control. This presumption is something economic planners rely on to maintain their authority.

But economics is intrinsically connected to almost every single aspect of our lives. From the clothes we wear to the food we eat, to our jobs and our education: economics is in all things. And without economic freedom, there can be no liberty. Period.

Anyone having any doubts that economic control will necessarily lead to tyranny and oppression need only look to Venezuela.

Why Detest Commercial Freedom?

It has always been peculiar to me that socialists believe so fervently in social freedom and yet detest economic liberty. This is why many proponents of socialism and other forms of state control will advocate for economic restrictions, without a concern for civil liberties. They believe them to be separate entities, each existing without impacting the other.

But once economic control has been seized by the government, the stripping of our individual rights will soon follow. And today, we have the unfortunate opportunity of witnessing a once prosperous country completely succumb to the tragedy of a controlled economy.

The situation in Venezuela has become so dire, it would fit perfectly into the plot of any dystopian novel. What started as an economic crisis has now escalated to a humanitarian nightmare of which there appears to be no end in sight.

Venezuela once housed the world’s most abundant oil reserves, which its national economy relied on heavily. In fact, these reserves were responsible for 95 percent of all export earnings. At its height, the country was capable of producing 3.5 million barrels of oil per day. But after Chavez came to power and an oil worker strike ensued, the leader decided to fire those on strike and instead, bring in workers who were loyal to his government.

Unfortunately, this takeover of the country’s primary source of wealth meant that those experienced in the field were now pushed out, and replaced with inexperienced workers. And after years of continued mismanagement and poor decision-making at the hand of the state, the oil output began declining significantly.

As of earlier this year, the country was down to producing around 1.7 barrels of oil each day, but its continued decline is inevitable.

According to the logic held by those who refuse to acknowledge the connection between economic liberties and civil liberties, this situation should not have had an effect on the day to day lives of Venezuelans. But this is simply not the case.

As Hayek warned:

Economic planning would not affect merely those of our marginal needs that we have in mind when we speak contemptuously about the merely economic. It would, in effect, mean that we as individuals should no longer be allowed to decide what we regard as marginal.

The authority directing all economic activity would control not merely the part of our lives which is concerned with inferior things; it would control the allocation of the limited means for all our ends. And whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all our ends and must, therefore, decide which are to be satisfied and which not. This is really the crux of the matter.

And this is exactly what has happened in Venezuela.

As the economic situation worsened, the residents lost control over their own lives. Since electricity is now scarce, the government is in control of determining where its use is directed. But this doesn’t merely mean residents will be left sitting at home in the dark. It meant that places of business would also have to close, sometimes without notice.

One vendor told of his frustration when he was trying to run a consumer’s debit card as payment. Since the entire country is subject to a loss of power when the state deems it necessary, the electricity went out right as he tried to process the payment. Of course, he was unable to make that transaction which resulted in a loss of money and the consumer was unable to obtain what they needed.

Without the freedom to work, there is no money to be made and no economic prosperity to be had.

But that is not where the chaos ends.

Controlling Economic Lives

Food and necessities, like toilet paper, are not only in short supply; they are also completely under state control. Those wanting to acquire these items must wake up long before the sun has risen and stand in long lines. While waiting in these lines, these “consumers,” if you can even still call them that, are sitting ducks for thieves.

It has become common for thugs and others with malicious intent to hold people at gunpoint and rob them of whatever wealth they have left. Last year, one man was killed in line in an attempt to guard his cellphone.

Meanwhile, as he lay dying, the line did not break, because to lose your place in line, even to attend to the wounded, meant that you may not get to feed your family. But waiting in these lines does not mean you will receive what you need, or what the state thinks you need. Many times Venezuelans will spend their whole day in line only to discover that the store is completely out of supplies.

For frustrated citizens who want to change things or at least let their opinion be heard, free speech has been all but decimated. Any vocal opposition against the state and you might find yourself in a jail cell, where you are unable to help anyone.

This catastrophe has even spread to hospitals. Since water and electricity are scarce, hospitals have been unable to sterilize equipment or even wash the bloody sheets from surgical beds. Infant mortality rates have skyrocketed, because children being born under these unsanitary conditions, and with no access to food have such a low chance of survival.

And as horrific as each of these examples are, the situation grows worse by the day as individuals continue to be stripped both of their rights and their ability to choose.

Meanwhile, President Maduro continues to praise socialism and demonize free market capitalism. He has even said that “Venezuela must deepen socialism to improve the economy.” He has even denied foreign aid from humanitarians aligned with capitalist countries.

But of course, Maduro himself is not suffering as his people are. Prior to Castro’s death, he even spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an extravagant birthday party in celebration of one of the cruelest dictators in modern history.

As Hayek says, “And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served,” And Maduro is serving no ends save his own.

Free Markets are Liberation

So many who fall prey to the concept of a planned economy believe that it will liberate individuals from the mundane task of having to choose. Forgetting, that it is our right to choose that makes us free in the first place.

“Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another…And if one way of achieving our ends proves too expensive for us, we are free to try other ways.” Hayek aptly says. And he is correct. In Venezuela, citizens cannot simply choose to buy toilet paper from a different vendor instead of having to wait in a line.

When the government took control in the wake of economic tragedy, the power to choose was given to the state. And the state does not care which brand of toilet paper you use or what price point you are comfortable paying. It does not care what medicine is vital in order for you to function. It chooses based on its own set of blanket value scales in which everyone is equal simply because everyone is equally let unsatisfied.  

And there is almost nothing the people can do about it, making the situation far worse because as Hayek also states, “Nothing makes conditions more unbearable than the knowledge that no effort of ours can change them.”

What is worse, is that proponents of socialism praise this lack of choice as liberating. Now that the state has decided when, where, and at what cost something can be purchased, individuals have been relieved of this heavy burden. Hayek describes these types of people by saying:

But few want to be relieved through having the choice made for them by others. People just wish that the choice should not be necessary at all. And they are only too ready to believe that the choice is not really necessary, that it is imposed upon them merely by the particular economic system under which we live. What they resent is, in truth, that there is an economic problem.

And that is exactly what befell Venezuela: a devastating economic problem. And this problem was used as a vessel to suppress the freedom and choice of the individual in the name of a planned economy.

So for those who would still like to believe that economic factors are separate from individual liberty, Hayek says:

Economic values are less important to us than many things precisely because in economic matters we are free to decide what to us is more, and what less, important.

Licensing Boards Are Inhibiting Free Competition in the Market

/in /by

Imagine attempting to open a bakery that specializes in cakes. But before the business can even get off the ground, the government pays you a visit and informs you that unless you also bake and sell pies in addition to the cakes, it will not allow you to legally open your bakery.

This sounds silly to you at first, but the government insists that since pies and cakes are traditionally both sold in bakeries, that is just how the law works. You can either comply or abandon your dream of owning a specialty cake bakery.

Regulations Are Stranger Than Fiction

While this may be nothing more than a fictional scenario, regulations this outrageous do exist. And what is worse, they prevent many from obtaining their entrepreneurial dreams. In fact, a similar situation is currently happening in North Carolina, where one makeup artist’s dream of opening a cosmetology school is being stifled by a peculiar occupational licensing law.

North Carolina resident, Jasna Bukvic-Bhayani wants to open a school where hopeful cosmetologists can come to learn the tools of the trade. As a makeup artist herself, Bukvic-Bhayani found teaching makeup artistry to others to be both rewarding and lucrative. But the state shut her down before she could even begin.

As a certified cosmetologist, she has already obtained all the permits and licenses necessary to practice her craft in exchange for compensation. But even though she is permitted to practice cosmetology she is forbidden from teaching this craft to others unless she also teaches esthetics.

The field of esthetics involves procedures like microdermabrasion, body waxing, and facials, none of which Bukvic-Bhayani desires to teach at her school. Even still, the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners told her that unless she intends on turning her school into an esthetic school as well as makeup artistry the state will not allow her to open up for business.

But incorporating esthetics into her curriculum isn’t as easy as simply taking a few weeks to go over the basics. Instead, this will force her to spend at least $10,000 on esthetic equipment in addition to the hundreds of wasted hours she will spend teaching a skill she doesn’t want to teach. For a student to be a state-certified cosmetologist they must complete at least 600 hours of esthetic training, whether they want to practice this skill or not.

Bukvic-Bhayani has insisted that esthetics is not a part of the business model for her school, but the state doesn’t care. Since many cosmetic schools also teach esthetics, the state claims that this should be the norm for anyone wanting to open a school involving cosmetology in any way.

Surveying the Competition

What is even more disturbing than the fact that Bukvic-Bhayani is being prevented from reaching her entrepreneurial dream is how the state came to learn of her school’s existence in the first place.

In order to attract prospective students to her school, Bukvic-Bhayani paid for online advertising. Unfortunately, the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners makes a habit of monitoring facebook ads in an attempt to catch those who may not be following their rules. This is exactly how Bukvic-Bhayani came to be on the board’s radar.

And this type of monitoring is not specific to the realm of cosmetology. A year ago, a mother was fined after a health inspector caught wind that she was selling Ceviche that was not first approved by the state’s health department. By scouring facebook groups that serve almost as digital farmer’s markets, these regulatory boards have prevented many individuals from earning a living.

These boards also encourage a dependence on the state before one is able to put forth an entrepreneurial idea and getting ahead in life.

In the Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek even warns often of the dangers that follow when a state bars entry to certain vocational fields. It is certain he would be disgusted today to see just how far this practice has expanded.

These regulations are usually crafted by those already in the field. By setting all these hefty regulations, they can limit who is allowed to enter the field. In other words, they are given the unjust privilege of deciding who is allowed to compete in the free market, and who is not. 

Luckily, the nonprofit organization, Institute for Justice has come to Bukvic-Bhayani’s aid and is helping her fight for the right to earn a living. And they have found a rather creative way to combat this regulation.

The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak for a living. But this protection does not extend only to the individual’s right to speak out against the government. It also extends to one’s profession. This serves to protect speakers, authors, journalist and yes, even makeup artists.

Institute for Justice has a long track record of doing its best to fight for the rights of those who want nothing more than to earn a living without fear of government intrusion. Hopefully, this story will end with the opening of Bukvic-Bhayani’s cosmetology school.

Even Hollywood Celebrities Encounter Government Red Tape

/in /by

Nick Offerman is disappointingly not as liberty-minded in real life as the beloved Ron Swanson character he portrayed in the series Parks and Recreation. But in a video released a few months ago, Offerman gets a taste Swanson’s anti-regulatory sentiment when he tries to open a whiskey distillery and is met with obstacles from the government.

Offerman has been painstaking leftist on Second Amendment issues and endorsing political candidates — a huge contrast from the character that has become a reference point for libertarians attempting to explain their political beliefs to family members, who have no idea what it means to be neither  Democrat nor a Republican.

Red Tape

While Offerman has not been a champion of liberty in his offscreen life, his love of fine whiskey may be the one issue that turns him from statist celebrity to libertarian hero.

In his video entitled, Nick Offerman’s ‘The Offerman Distillery’, the actor attempts to open his own distillery but soon learns that the government requires an occupational permit in order to do so. Confused and irritated that opening a distillery is such a monstrous bureaucratic feat, Offerman highlights one of the most frustrating forms of government red tape, preventing otherwise productive individuals from earning an honest living.

Expressing his desire to combine his love of whiskey with his love of doing good for other people, Offerman tells his viewers why this distillery is so important to him. Wanting to open his appropriately named “Offerman Distillery” in Scotland’s Isle of Sky, he stakes his sign in the fresh ground and sets off to work.

Aptly demonstrating how all governments seek to control the economies of their various nations, Offerman soon discovers that Scotland has just as much entrepreneurial red tape as the United States.

Can’t Use Your Name?

Just as he begins telling viewers why his whiskey is sure to beat out all the others, his phone rings. A bureaucrat is on the other end of the line, telling Offerman that he needs to apply for a permit, have a full background check conducted, and — taking a swipe at intellectual property — informs him that he does not have legal permission to use his own last name in the distillery, since another company has already had his name trademarked.

A frustrating and relatable montage ensues in which Offerman learns he needs a license before he can apply for the required permit and then proceeds to endure a round of irrelevant questioning from the faceless agent of the state. Finally, after being subjected to the horrors of  “on hold” music for what seems like hours, someone finally answers, only to tell him he will be placed on hold yet again.

After calculating the amount of paperwork and various government procedures that he must complete, Offerman resolves that it will be at least 23 years before he is able to produce his first bottle of whiskey.

As is government’s specialty, the state’s hurdles crush Offerman’s entrepreneurial spirit. Realizing how tedious it is to set up an above-board distillery, Offerman moves his business to the “black market,” selling his whiskey from a homemade booth akin to lemonade stands run by children in the summer.

Unfortunately, he is quickly told that his actions are illegal and he abandons his effort entirely.

While Offerman’s comedic skills make this experience both hilarious and infuriating to the viewers, he has, perhaps unknowingly, channeled his inner Ron Swanson.

While it may have only been for a few moments, Offerman shows that even celebrities have at least one issue where their views are, often unknowingly, libertarian. And for this Parks and Recreation star, the government better keep their hands off his whiskey.

Hayek and the Lasting Importance of the Rule of Law

/in /by

Young Americans like myself have come of age in a climate where arbitrary rule has steadily become the norm. Civil liberties, once guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, are now conditional; they are regularly disregarded in the pursuit of a specific end.

The war on terror, for example, ushered in an era where the government was given the power, or rather gave itself the power, to do anything it needed in order to keep the country secure. As long as the state’s violations against our inalienable rights were done in the name of national security, or prosperity, they were considered just, necessary even.

The Constitution that was specifically intended to protect the American people against this kind of rule has now just become a list of suggestions. President Bush is even rumored to have referred to it as a “goddamn piece of paper,” when confronted about his refusal to act within its bounds during the height of the War on Terror.

And in the wake of this “anything goes” rhetoric, the War on Terror was and continues to be used to suspend free speech, restrict travel, detain American citizens indefinitely, and even defend the American President’s use of a “secret kill list.”

It was with this jaded view of government restraint that I began reading the Sixth Chapter of The Road to Serfdom. Hayek uses this chapter to dig into the concept of the rule of law.

Hayek’s Day

Initially, I was surprised to find Hayek’s enthusiastic support of the belief that a government is capable of limiting itself within legal boundaries. I attributed this to modern hindsight. How on earth could Hayek know that the September 11th attacks would all but demolish the rule of law in this country?

But Hayek watched Hitler rise to power through constitutional means. He was no stranger to the very real possibility of arbitrary rule. Something he is certain to point out:

It may well be that Hitler has obtained his unlimited powers in a strictly constitutional manner and that whatever he does is therefore legal in the judicial sense. But who would suggest for that reason that the Rule of Law still prevails in Germany?

And yet, even though Hayek acknowledges its shortcomings, he still shows a great deal of reverence towards this oft-disregarded concept.

But this respect, while possibly naive, is not unfounded. Even if our government no longer adheres to the rule of law, it was an idea completely unheard of prior to the rise of classical liberalism. And without the rule of law, it is certain that mankind would have already succumbed to absolute despotism.

Credit Where Credit is Due

The concept of the rule of law was integral in the history of human progress. And not just in western civilization. Even though it may not have worked as well in practice as it did in theory, its implications were nothing short of revolutionary.

In 1215, when the landholding barons led an uprising and forced King John to sign the great charter, or the Magna Carta as history would come to know it, the rule of law experiment officially began. And the world was well on its way to finding out whether or not a king or some other authority could be tamed by written laws.

This idea floated around for a few centuries and was tried to varying degrees until it became a preoccupation for many classical liberal scholars. If the actions of state authority could not only be limited, but also predicted, the individual would be able to maintain his freedom, or so they thought.

So important was this principle to the concept of individual liberty, Hayek even claims that it is an essential feature of any country claiming to be free from tyranny.

Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.

Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar sentiment during the time of America’s founding saying:

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,

so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution

so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

It is important to understand that this idea had never been tried before in human history. The idea that a ruler would restrict his or her power seemed completely unfounded. Especially since prior to the American Revolution, the “divine right of kings” doctrine was so steadfastly believed.

Since a King was allegedly anointed by God, his word was beyond contestation. The only referee between the people and their ruler was God. And unfortunately, only the king had his direct line.

Given this bleak situation, you can imagine how empowering it must have been to be given the opportunity to live in a land where the ruler was bound, not just by fallible men, but by concrete doctrine.

The idea that government ought to be bound by written laws was pivotal to the American founding. It is what inspired our written Constitution and specifically, our Bill of Rights. A list of things government cannot do. And while in hindsight we might see that its power to restrain government has been exaggerated, it did change the world.

Dead Letter Law

It’s easy to lambaste Bush for calling the Constitution nothing but a piece of paper. But in a sense, he was correct. The Bill of Rights has become dead letter. When the people stop valuing the liberties that the law is supposed to protect, the entire system crumbles because no one is holding government accountable.

The Second Amendment, for example, is an explicit limitation on our government. By encouraging an armed populace, it also encourages politicians to stay within their limits for fear of just rebellion.

Yet today, the history behind the right to bear arms is disregarded as unimportant, unnecessary, and even dangerous. Without the ideological substance to back these ideas we seek to bind our leaders to, there can be no follow through. Each right we relinquish is a right we may never get back.

So while governments may always be looking for ways to violate the rule of law, it is important that as individuals we remember to keep them accountable as much as is humanly possible.

Automation Does Not Justify A Universal Basic Income

/in /by

Today’s most prominent tech and entrepreneurial leaders have been agitating for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in what has become a growing movement. Richard Branson recently joined Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and others by throwing his support behind this massive welfare program, citing, like the others, the fear of automation and technological unemployment.

In late summer, he said:

With the acceleration of [artificial intelligence] and other new technology… the world is changing fast. A lot of exciting new innovations are going to be created, which will generate a lot of opportunities and a lot of wealth, but there is a real danger it could also reduce the amount of jobs.

He continued:

This will make experimenting with ideas like basic income even more important in the years to come.

There are many reasons, both economic and philosophical, to be against the idea of a UBI.But since the UBI is often justified on the grounds that automation is a threat to American employment, it is important to debunk this myth separately.

The first portion of what Branson says is accurate. Our modern world is incredible. As automation advances, the consumer wins by gaining access to higher quality products and services.

We have all experienced the convenience of using a self-checkout station at the grocery store or ordering food from an automated kiosk. Some of us have even experienced the joy of having a delicious cupcake dispensed out of a “cupcake ATM.” Others, like myself, spend a fair portion of our time barking commands at our Google Homes or other personal assistants that we rely on to keep track of our daily schedules and news updates.

Our lives are automated now. They will only get more so with the passing of time. And that is a good thing.

As for opportunities and wealth, Branson is also correct.These technological advancements are creating whole new sectors providing more jobs and more opportunities for more human beings.

But unfortunately, while Branson does express this sentiment, the last portion of his statement seems completely contrary to the words that preceded it. Technological progress does not come at the catastrophic cost of human labor as he and others assert.

The Curse of the Machinery

In his 1946 classic, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt spends an entire chapter discussing this phenomenon. “The Curse of the Machinery,” as he calls it, describes the hysteria that has always accompanied technological progress throughout history.

Wasting no time making his point, Hazlitt opens this chapter by saying:

The belief that machines cause unemployment, when held with any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only must we be causing unemployment with every technological improve­ment we make today, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and sweat.

What makes this chapter of Hazlitt’s book truly fascinating is his use of historical examples to support his point.

Workers during the Industrial Revolution may have never dreamed of a world where automation was integrated into the lives of average Americans. But they did fear a world in which labor-saving machines “threatened” to put them out of work.

In the stocking industry, for example, fear of machines was so intense, massive riots erupted as soon as workers were introduced to the new mechanical knitting machines known as, “stocking frames.” In the midst of all the chaos, new machines were destroyed, houses were burned, inventors were threatened, and peace was not restored until the military eventually intervened. These machine-wreckers were called “Luddites,” and thus a term was born.

During the Great Depression, a group known as the “Technocrats” was formed in direct opposition to new machinery. When the economy goes to hell, everyone is eager to point fingers. And according to Hazlitt, in 1932 the American “Technocrats” cast the blame in the direction of machinery.

“It is enough to say that the Technocrats returned to the error in all its native purity that machines permanently dis­place men—except that, in their ignorance, they presented this error as a new and revolutionary discovery of their own. It was simply one more illustration of Santayana’s aphorism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Already, in 1932 those terrified of technology displacing workers thought themselves revolutionary in their discoveries. Yet, their fears were just a modern manifestation of an age-old fear. Likewise, those in Silicon Valley are misled to believe that automation will cause massive unemployment. But as Hazlitt says, “Not only should we have to regard all further technical progress as a calamity; we should have to re­gard all past technical progress with equal horror.”

And even though the fear of machinery has recurred throughout history, the reality has never seemed to turn out the way the scaremongers claimed it would.

The Market Corrects

In the case of the British stocking knitters, it is true that as many as 50,000 were left jobless in the wake of mechanical stocking frames. However, as Hazlitt points out, “But in so far as the rioters believed, as most of them undoubtedly did, that the machine was permanently displacing men, they were mistaken, for before the end of the nineteenth century the stocking industry was employing at least 100 men for every man it employed at the beginning of the century.”

Likewise, 27 years after the invention of the cotton-spinning machine, which was met with similar hostility as the mechanical stocking frame, the number of workers employed in the industry had grown from 7,900 to 320,000, a rate of 4,400 percent.

When innovation abolishes the need for labor in one specific sector, a period of displacement or correction may occur. But it is never long before new jobs are created elsewhere.

Hazlitt says:

This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed… After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before…At this point, it may seem, labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer, the capi­talist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits that the subsequent social gains must come. The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possi­bly he will use part of them in all three: (1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more coats; or (2) he will invest the extra profits in some other in­dustry; or (3) he will spend the extra profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will in­crease employment.

There are already examples of this happening presently. Uber, for example, may soon be significantly decreasing its need for human Uber drivers as self-driving cars become a reality. But that does not mean these drivers will be left destitute or jobless. Instead, Uber has simultaneously been expanding its delivery services. From flu shots, meals, and even puppies, Uber offers a variety of services that, at this point in time, still require human employees. If, in the future, drones are capable of replacing human delivery services, it will only be a matter of time before new opportunities become available on the market.

Progress does not come without an initial shake-up of traditional norms as the market adjusts to new technology, but this change should be embraced. As the stocking makers and cotton spinners have taught us, innovation should never be discouraged because with technological progress comes more opportunities for the human race.

And for those who may doubt that jobs do not need to be lost in the name of technology, many may be surprised to learn that despite the advanced weaponry available today, there are more blacksmiths now than at any other point in history.

The great minds of Silicon Valley need not worry, then. As long as innovation continues and markets are left relatively free, there will be no need to fear the mass displacement of employees as a result of automation.

How One Millennial Fought Back Against Red Tape

/in /by

Millennials have been major catalysts in changing the rules of the traditional marketplace. Impatient and eager to move on to the next big thing, we are a generation born to innovate. But venturing into uncharted territory, though groundbreaking, means that we have to force the traditional market to evolve with our revolutionary methods.

From the sharing economy to food trucks and hipster-made craft beer, millennials have found a way to make money in a manner that fits their unique lifestyles. As with most successful market endeavors, the only thing preventing millennials from making an even greater impact on the economy is government bureaucracy.

Rebecca Mueller left her career in the finance world to pursue her dream of being a fashion designer. After graduating from fashion school in Chicago, Mueller decided not to relocate to greener pastures and instead set out to contribute to the local economy.

Planning to buy all her supplies from local vendors, Mueller wanted to open up a mobile boutique that would operate like a closet on wheels. Confident in her interpretation of the city statutes on peddler licenses, Mueller headed to City Hall full of hope and ready to make her dream a reality. It didn’t take long for her dream to turn into a bureaucratic nightmare. At City Hall, she was denied her peddler’s license.

Mueller had purchased a 25-foot truck and had planned to stop at different locations around the city and sell her original clothing. Unfortunately, the city informed her that in order to qualify for a tradition peddler’s license, she would not be able to park her mobile boutique and set up shop. This is a problem that many foods truck owners have faced while attempting to start their businesses.

The city assured Mueller that they were working on legislation to cater to innovative businesses like hers, but there was no clear answer as to when this would actually happen. After months without any real answers, Mueller was no closer to opening up her boutique.

Enter Institute for Justice

Desperate to get the wheels rolling, she decided to seek help from Institute for Justice’s (IJ) law clinic on the University of Chicago campus. IJ was able to tell Mueller what the government neglected to, that in fact there was a license available that would allow her business to operate her unique business.

The “emerging business license” was created in 2012 to accommodate for innovative businesses which do not fit into preexisting regulations. The emerging business license gives the entrepreneur two years to operate their business. The understanding being that in those two years, the local government will work to create reasonable regulations. However, prior to Mueller’s inquiry, the license had only been issued once since 2012. Fortunately for Mueller, she was able to get approved for the emerging license and after large amounts of time and money were spent, her mobile boutique was able to open up earlier this month.

When it comes to innovative Millennials trying to start new businesses, Mueller’s sentiment expressed in her local op-ed really drives the point home:

I hope the next novel business to make its way to City Hall is met with a red carpet instead of a maze of red tape.

Individualism Is Win-Win. All The Other Theories Are Zero Sum.

/in /by

Professor Deirdre McCloskey is a distinctive voice for common sense. She trashes all the prevailing theories of her colleagues in the economics professoriat, as well as the practices of the social engineers in government and think tanks. In an essay on her website titled Populism Is Zero Sum Under Majority Rule, she succinctly summarizes her case (which she has made most unsccinctly yet supremely engagingly in her Bourgeois Trilogy series of three 600-page books: The Bourgeois Virtues, Bourgeois Dignity and Bourgeois Equality).

Here, we present a 10-point summary of the case the good professor makes in the paper. We’ve substituted the term individualism (which she does not use) for terms like classical liberalism (which she does use) because we look through the individualist lens and we think that’s a good modern expression for what the professor means. Please do judge for yourself by reading the original.

Individualism is a win-win proposition. Populism, liberal democracy, socialism and all the other theories of social order are zero sum.

The principle of zero sum is clearly expressed in redistributionist policies such as progressive taxation. One group can be made richer only if another is made poorer. Tax those who are successful and redistribute the loot to the poor.

Zero sum is default thinking for humans. It’s deeply natural: the herd mentality. Everyone should be equal.

Unfortunately, if the herd rules, it will do so violently, by forcefully seizing the wealth of those who succeed more than others.

The herd’s forceful readjustment is after-the-fact. Equality is imposed as an end-state.

After individuals have exerted their efforts to serve their fellows well, have increased economic growth and created prosperity, the redistributionist police intervene to confiscate the fruits of individuals’ labors. They punish some (those who have created the prosperity) and reward others.

Individualism, on the other hand, promotes the beneficent process, not the egalitarian end-state.

Individualism wants everyone to be free and equally equipped at the beginning, in order to try their best, each in their own way. The market – the voluntary decisions of individuals to exchange goods and services in a win-win exchange – delivers a verdict on which efforts are worthy of reward by customer acceptance. Professor McCloskey calls the outcome of the process “trade-tested betterment”. Trade means voluntary exchange. Tested means the market decides and the consumer is judge. Betterment means win-win for all participants.

Zero sum thinking assumes no growth.

Your gain will be my pain. That’s the assumption, which includes the conviction that there will be no economic growth or it will be so slow as to be negligible. In these circumstances, riches can be accumulated only by evil means. Entrepreneurs are to be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hatred.

Such feelings may have been appropriate for the middle ages, when there really was no growth. Now they are reasserted because of the slow growth theories that are popular in the professoriat again today. Same idea, same feeling, same suspicion.

The truth is that there has been tremendous economic growth over the last 200 years and it has benefited everyone.

Professor McCloskey puts numbers on the economic growth of the last 200 years: a 3000% percent – equivalent to 30X – improvement. She calls it the Great Enrichment. The improvement has gone to the workers. Their real wage is 20-30 times what it was. And this doesn’t include the hard-to-measure improvements in quality, from better health care to air conditioning to big screen TV’s. The return on capital had stayed pretty much static, while the return on work has soared.

Exchange-tested betterment made poor people rich.

It is true that poor people were once very poor. They struggled with a low quality of life. Subsistence farming labor was the lot of most people before the Great Enrichment. There were famines and starvation. The new truth is that this low quality of life is largely eliminated.

Economists get this all wrong. Why is that?

Professor McCloskey  cites two main reasons why economists don’t understand the win-win of individualism. First, economists don’t understand economic growth. Their theories don’t predict it, so the empirical evidence can’t be accepted.

Second, they don’t understand the efforts of individuals to seek their own distinctive way of serving others, in order to create value for their customers which they can exchange in markets. Economists invented an idea they call “perfect competition”, which means that no-one should have any advantage over anyone else. If they do, the redistribution police will intervene.

But in reality, the whole point of economics is that each of us tries to find our own individual advantage, the thing that we do best that is unique to us. We exchange that on the market with others who have found exactly the same advantage for themselves, except in a different field, or in offering a different service, or in making a different product. There’s even an economists’ term for this: comparative advantage. But it’s been discarded.

The right is as bad as the left in opposing individualism.

The left wants to confiscate and redistribute. The right wants to maintain hierarchy. Someone has to be the boss, to tell others what to do. Hierarchy is just another form of suppression of individualism. It results in intervention, and forceful imposition of the status quo.

We need a positive theory of “no bosses”.

Economists and social engineers believe that social order requires bosses. It is achieved only by “the continuous attention of authority”. We’ve written elsewhere that the opposite is true.

Order is the result of the spontaneous dynamics of adjustment. Each of us is free to do our best, and our ideas are tested in the marketplace. Some are accepted, some are not. Each of us makes adjustments accordingly. We may not be able to predict exactly how these adjustments are going to play out in the future. We simply continue to generate new ideas and new knowledge and make new exchanges.

It is necessary for us to be free to do so. We should not have to ask permission in advance from any authority or expert or boss.

We Should Encourage Child Entrepreneurs, Not Fine Them

/in /by

Over the past several years, there has been a crackdown on child entrepreneurs. Where homemade lemonade stands and bake sales once represented the innocence of childhood curiosity, they are now being shut down by local authorities who demand these children obtain licenses before they can make a profit. But the crackdown isn’t limited to food-based businesses alone.

This last summer, a local news outlet in Alabama reported that in the city of Gardendale, teens mowing lawns for extra summer cash have been routinely stopped and accosted by local authorities for failing to obtain a government license permitting them to earn money. The license these young entrepreneurs are being asked to obtain costs a whopping $110 dollars. For these teens who are only charging about $20 per lawn, this cost is a huge burden.

Highlighting just how ridiculous this enforcement of occupational licensing has been on minors, John Stossel ran a segment on his show a few years ago explaining how tedious it has become to open up something as simple as a child-run lemonade stand. In fact, if these children were to comply with state regulations, Stossel estimated it would take several months and a decent amount of cash just to open a simple lemonade stand.

Luckily, one state is taking the lead on protecting children from the long arm of the state.  

The Beehive State Comes to the Rescue

Tucked away in the Rocky Mountains, the state of Utah is known as the industrious beehive state because of its tradition of hard work. While other states have been quick to shut down children wanting to learn about the free market, Utah has taken preemptive measures to protect minors in their quest to earn money.

Connor Boyack, a Utah resident and a longtime advocate for liberty has made a full-time job out of protecting the rights of Utah citizens. As president of the burgeoning Utah think tank, Libertas Institute of Utah, Boyack began running his new nonprofit from his home, while he made plans to grow his operation and find a more suitable location. It was during this time that Boyack was alerted by city officials that he was not allowed to run a business out of his home without the proper permits. Of course, as a nonprofit Boyack was not bringing in any money that was not spent directly on Libertas’ initiatives, but the city regulators didn’t seem to care about that vital detail.  

Learning the hard way that you can’t fight city hall, Boyack decided to take a different approach against the burden of occupational licensing: focusing on the children.  

Won’t Somebody Please Think of The Children!

When compared to other states, Utah has actually been very friendly towards child-run businesses and the Libertas Institute would like to keep it that way: which is why they worked with the state legislature to craft a bill that would prevent minors from having to comply with the burdensome regulatory process.

Prior to the bill being passed, residents of Provo, Utah held a children’s market in the parking lot of a privately owned inn. Boyack’s own children participated in this endeavor, selling homemade marshmallow shooters constructed by the children out of PVC pipes. Each shooter retailed for $3 and came with a small bag of marshmallows.

Since the market took place on private property, there was not much local law enforcement could do to stop it. However, this fact alone gave Boyack inspiration for the language of the bill.  

Originally, the bill protecting childhood entrepreneurs sought to guard home-based businesses against state intervention. However, many child-run lemonade stands are not operated solely on privately owned property. Often, these amateur businesses are operated on neighborhood street corners or sidewalks, which are unfortunately considered public property.

Perhaps the greatest aspect of this bill is that by focusing on the children, it helps entrepreneurial adults as well. Boyack was able to tap into sympathies that played well with state legislatures, after all, no one wants to be responsible for killing legislation aimed at helping children.

Senate Bill 81  amends existing laws requiring occupational licenses and permits for certain businesses, specifically those run by minors under the age of 18. However, it also helps adults by demolishing any fees associated with the required permits. True, Utah residents over 18 will still have to obtain the government’s permission before operating a home-based business, but they will no longer be forced to pay exorbitant fees.

In fact, by eliminating the fees associated with home-based occupational licensing, the state of Utah stands to lose about a million dollars in annual revenue previously collected from those looking to run their own businesses out of their home.

While the overall goal is still to eliminate all occupational licenses, protecting minors in their entrepreneurial pursuits is an excellent starting point and has made a huge impact across the state.

As Boyack himself put it, “Let’s at least give kids a taste of the free market before the crushing bureaucracy weighs in upon them.”

Struggling To Innovate? Short Of Problem-Solving Ideas? Check Your Metaphor.

/in /by

Dr. Javier Busquets of ESADE School Of Business in Spain has investigated metaphors as a source of knowledge.

Metaphors Represent Our Sense Of Reality.

Metaphors are expressions we use to represent and explain reality. They reflect our experience and they include both what we know and what we don’t know but may imagine. They play this role because we use them to include an entire representation, even though they are truly a combination of the known and the unknown.

For example, if we describe a leader as a lion, we are representing strength and power and aggressiveness without fear, and we also are expressing low levels of trust, since we don’t associate lions with trustworthiness.

The Wrong Metaphor Can Lead Us Astray.

The attribute of metaphors as representing complete things can lead us astray. Professor Busquets evokes Kepler and Newton, two seventeenth century scientists attempting to explain the workings of the universe and the motions of the planets. Kepler’s metaphor was a clock – a piece of machinery in which all the motions of the components are linked together. Newton’s metaphor was a balance of forces. Kepler was able to identify some useful findings, but Newton’s metaphor led him to greater, longer lasting and more significant findings.

Changing The Metaphor Changes The Game.

Professor Busquets offers us another example of changing metaphors revolutionizing actual practice, this time in sports. He cites the Spanish national soccer team that won the World Championship in 2010 and FC Barcelona, who were dominant in club soccer at the same time.

The metaphor for soccer, like many sports, had traditionally been war. Beat the enemy, attack, defend, win the fight, destroy the other team. The metaphor determined organization. There were attacking players, whose job was to score. There were midfield players, whose job was to pass to the scorers. And there were defenders whose job was to stop the enemy from scoring.

Make Jazz, Not War.

The Spanish team changed the metaphorical language from that of war to that of jazz. In jazz, everyone needs to understand the full game; certain individuals may take the lead from time to time during periods of improvisation, while all remain connected, and anyone can pass on the lead to any other at any time. In soccer, this metaphor translated into re-thinking the playing field, identifying “strategic areas for problem solving” (as opposed to the traditional attacking, defending and midfield zones). Each area is managed by a leader but anyone can take over at any time. Anyone can play any position, and anyone can try to score. Everyone is a connector; some players with special expertise are super-connectors.

In this new language, there is no “attack”, there is a possession phase, when the team has the ball. There is no “defense”, but there is a “recovery phase”, when the opponent has possession of the ball and the strategic problem to be solved is to recover possession. The objective is not to destroy the enemy, but to create new ways to succeed; not to win the fight but to learn and become the best, and enjoy the process.

New Metaphor, New Winners.

The team that mastered the new metaphor and pursued it to its logical conclusions became dominant. They were able to innovate continuously and at speed. While organizing themselves in new ways based on the new metaphor, they were able to create doubt and uncertainty in opponents’ organization. For example, the Spanish team might play with no “attackers”, since everyone is a connector who can pass to anyone and anyone can score. How does a traditionally organized team “defend” against one that does not “attack”?

When there is a need for innovation or new solutions to strategic problems, check your metaphor and see if a new one might lead to new insights and breakthroughs.

Super-Connecting Is The New Metaphor Of Entrepreneurship.

We spend a lot of time here at https://centerforindividualism.org on the subject of entrepreneurship. One of the metaphors of entrepreneurship is that of a future problem solver. In this metaphor, the entrepreneur identifies a consumer dissatisfaction that can be solved in the future with a new solution no-one has offered before. It takes time to assemble the resources to create the new solution but, ideally, there is relief in the future for both parties: the consumer solves their dissatisfaction and the entrepreneur resolves the uncertainty of the development and assembly period with a successful outcome.

There is, however, a different metaphor that is not so time constrained, and therefore less subject to the stresses of uncertainty. The entrepreneur today is an orchestrator, a super-connector of knowledge, technology, collaborators and capital. All of these inputs are available in real time as a result of today’s technologies. The entrepreneur decides how they can contribute, based on their individual relationship to the inputs of knowledge, technology, collaborators and capital, by answering the question, “What kind of a connector am I?” In this metaphor, the entrepreneur is no longer a solver of future problems, but a creative orchestrator of inputs in real time.

New Metaphor, New Pathways Of Entrepreneurship.

The adoption of this new metaphor can change entrepreneurship and accelerate the pace of innovation and economic growth. We can all be connectors, and some of us can be super-connectors. There are unlimited opportunities today to connect all over the globe via internet platforms, and to connect to massive amounts of specialized knowledge in the context of special individual interests, skills and preferences, and thereby to create a unique individual entrepreneurial business. It is the connecting that creates new knowledge and new solutions.

Let’s all start connecting! Let’s stop trying so hard in the metaphor of solving problems, and focus on the metaphor of connecting people, knowledge and technology, so that problems solve themselves.

Write for CFI