Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Entrepreneurship Offers Hope to Youth, and the State Takes It Away

/in , /by

Tourists taking a stroll around the national monuments last June might have wondered what horrible crime was committed by a group of teenagers sitting handcuffed and detained on the sidewalk. But while imaginations may run wild, the truth of the matter is extremely tame; the only offense these teens were guilty of was selling bottled water without first asking the government for permission.  

If this seems like an overreaction on the part of law enforcement, that is because it absolutely is. However, this over-enforcement has become all too common when it comes to youthful attempts at entrepreneurship. During the hot summer months when school-aged children are liberated from their oppressive classrooms, many have discovered the wonders of capitalism only to be shut down by local authorities.

Just a week prior to this appalling scene, a similar instance occurred in the neighboring city of Baltimore, Maryland. A group of young black children, still donning their school uniforms from earlier in the day, were selling snow cones in their community, until police shut them down for not obtaining the proper permits. While these young children were fortunate enough to not have been placed in handcuffs, this national crackdown on child-run businesses is having a far worse impact on the communities where the self-sustaining entrepreneurial spirit is needed the most.

Breaking the Cycle

In the District of Columbia, 26 percent of its black residents are below the national poverty line. Equally dismal, for those black residents living in Baltimore, Maryland, 27.6 percent are considered to be living below the poverty line. And yet, rather than encouraging these communities to become self-sufficient, the state is penalizing those who have the most to gain from entrepreneurial endeavors.

Whether it’s selling lemonade on a neighborhood street corner or, like the young men detained in DC this weekend, selling cold bottles of water to overheated tourists, local law enforcement has cracked down and penalized minors who would dare start a business without first obtaining a government license. However, in other areas, specifically more affluent communities where the level of those living below the poverty line are not quite as high as Baltimore and Washington, DC, you will rarely find young entrepreneurs placed in handcuffs for making a few extra dollars.

Perhaps, this is what makes the scene on the national mall this weekend so horrific. Officers on the scene claimed that this extreme measure taken against these teens was done in order to ensure police safety, exemplifying yet again how members of lower socioeconomic communities are constantly facing state obstacles.

Not only are these licensing laws not doing anything substantial to actually protect consumers, they are disproportionately impacting the most economically vulnerable communities in negative ways. And as a result, the vicious cycle of poverty becomes incredibly difficult to escape.

For most of these young entrepreneurs, it never once occurred to them that they would even need such a thing before engaging in the economy. And who can blame them? In addition to these permit requirements being absolutely meaningless, the public school system has done nothing to foster an environment where young Americans are encouraged to go out and be active participants in the economy.

Imprisoned by Compulsory Education

Compulsory education has mandated that adolescents must sit in a desk for six to eight hours a day, caged away from the rest of society and isolated from critical thought or practical life skills. Instead of teaching students precepts of the free market and allowing them to actually experience capitalism in action, they are kept in a state of dependency until the day they turn 18. Then, after this magical government-sanctioned rite of passage has occurred, we throw them out into the real world and expect them to know how to find a job and make money.

Truthfully, it is amazing that these young people even want to get a job and make money after the system has crushed their spirits for 13 years. But in cities with higher levels of poverty, this becomes an even greater problem, especially when college is not a desirable or feasible option. The ability to create a business or learn a practical skill that can be used to cater to market demand is profitable for those of all socioeconomic backgrounds, but especially those eager to break the cycle of poverty.

But for those in more economically vulnerable communities, the system disproportionately impacts their ability to succeed as independent adults. Instead of encouraging their entrepreneurial spirit, we teach them useless skills and prevent them from opting out of school in favor of apprenticeships or other specialized courses of learning.

In fact, the system not only prohibits these students from looking for alternatives to K-12 education, it criminalizes those who stop attending just as it criminalizes those who do not ask the government for permission before starting a business.  

This was unfortunately exemplified this weekend in Washington DC. the boys were detained were merely trying to be entrepreneurial. Understanding that tourist season and the summer heat create an enormous demand for cold water, these teens spent their weekend creating value. They weren’t out getting into trouble or committing offenses, they were trying to be financially self-sufficient and instead found themselves handcuffed like common criminals.

The Market Provides

The market is a liberator of all people, regardless of their circumstances. It exists to help all those who are willing to utilize it well. When individuals of all ages are allowed to take full advantage of everything free market capitalism has to offer, they are able to better their circumstances, innovate their lives, and rise out of their situations.

When the state is continually building and reinforcing barriers that are put in the way of those who are already facing poverty and other unfortunate circumstances, it keeps them from achieving their full potential and becoming successful individuals. If the state is serious about trying to help those from the most vulnerable communities, the simple solution would be to stay out of the way.

Fortunately for the DC teens, the media they garnered as a result of being handcuffed caught the attention of Raymond Bell. Several years, Bell started the H.O.P.E (Helping Other People Excel) Project whose mission is “an information technology (“I.T.”) training program dedicated to providing technical training and development for young adults.”

After reaching out to two of the four young men in the picture, Bell was able to get them involved in his organization and they will soon be starting their new summer jobs in the tech industry. “I’m an entrepreneur myself,” Bell said, “and I love seeing young people having an interest in working for themselves.” Bell says he plans on reaching out to the other boys as well, but already, his organization has done more to help than the government ever could.

Trump Is Wrong about Amazon Being Too Powerful

/in /by

President Trump continued his war on Amazon last week, tweeting the following:

“I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!”

Trump’s concerns almost entirely stem from the fact that he is a real estate mogul and as such, see’s Amazon as a threat to brick and mortar establishments. And to be sure, Amazon is a threat to these outdated establishments. But that has everything to do with Amazon’s innovative business practices and nothing to do with the company having an unfair advantage in the marketplace. The internet age has made physical retail spaces less desirable. But with the passing of the old comes robust opportunities for the new. This is precisely what is meant by creative destruction. And Amazon is creative destruction at its finest. 

But this hatred for Amazon has united Trump with an unlikely ally: Bernie Sanders. While the two do not usually agree on much, the U.S. Senator from Vermont also declared that Amazon was getting too powerful, saying:

“And I think this is, look, this is an issue that has got to be looked at. What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We’re seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has.”

Bernie Sanders has been a voice for modern-day socialists who really do not understand much about the nature of power, or socialism for that matter. It should come as no surprise, then, that like Trump, Sanders does not understand how the market actually works. This is probably why he has claimed that Amazon has grown too large and is now a harm to consumers. 

Sure, Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos may be one of the richest men in the world, but wealth does not make you an enemy of the American consumer. On the contrary, it is precisely because Amazon has made life so convenient for the American consumer, that Bezos has been able to acquire so much wealth.

Amazon Makes Life More Convenient

I had less than 24 hours left before my flight was scheduled to leave and as luck would have it, I had just broken another pair of headphones. This seems like a simple enough problem to solve, but as I was without a vehicle and pressed for time, I was not sure what I was going to do.

Sure, I could buy headphones in the airport, but I would end up paying a great deal for that convenience of doing so, as everything tends to be more expensive in an airport. Then I remembered that certain products are available within hours through Amazon prime. Logging into my account at 11:30 PM at night, I ordered a pair of Beats Studio Headphones and paid a few dollars for overnight delivery.

When I awoke the next morning, I received a notification from my apartment’s management office that I had received a package. I looked at my clock, it was still before 10 AM. Needless to say, I was shocked. In less than twelve hours, Amazon had prepared my order and delivered it to me, saving me from having to endure a 12-hour flight without being able to listen to music or an audiobook.

This is just one story of how Amazon has made my own life more convenient. In fact, just in my own life, I could provide multiple examples of Amazon coming through for me, just as I am sure many of you could do the same.

This is what Amazon has done for so many of us and it is why Amazon is so widely used. Amazon is good at what it does. Sure, that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own fair share of errors. But when Amazon fails, it has to deal with the consumer. When the government fails, on the other hand, it is the taxpayer who must pay.

And because Amazon has such a great reputation among American consumers it has been able to expand into areas that other companies have not. For example, because Amazon has never let me down on a package delivery, I felt more comfortable trying their grocery service, Amazon Fresh. I am now a devote user and even pay an additionally monthly fee for unlimited deliveries. And because Amazon Fresh has been so convenient for me, I also felt more comfortable trying out Amazon’s meal delivery service.

It is precisely because consumers trust its services so much that they feel comfortable supporting Amazon as it expands into new territories. Amazon is not becoming too powerful, it is responding to consumer demand. And consumers love Amazon.

Government Monopolies 

While Trump and Sanders would claim that Amazon is growing into some kind of monopoly, the only true monopoly is government. Whereas Amazon and others must respond to consumer demand in order to stay afloat in the business world, the government relies solely on force. And through this force, the government is able to seize the funds it needs to continue all of its federal programs, regardless of whether or not consumers are satisfied with what is being offered.

One prime example of this is the postal service, which Trump has listed as one of Amazon’s victims.

There is almost no reason for the post office to exist anymore. And yet, in the digital age where paper is being used less and less, taxpayers are still on the hook. But unlike other services, where consumers can choose which company to patronize based on their own market preferences, when sending mail you have one choice: The United State Postal Service.

And because of this forced patronage, consumers must endure long lines and inefficient government employees every time they need to send off an important parcel. And while private parcel services exist, like UPS and FedEX, there are certain laws that bar these establishments from transporting specific parcels that are a responsibility of the USPS.

If you want to talk about an establishment that is too powerful, I would say the USPS fits that description far more than the Amazon does. And yet, Trump’s war on the company continues. But no matter how angry his tweets are it won’t stop consumers from utilizing Amazon’s services. At the end of the day, Amazon performs all of its tasks better than its competitors and at a decent price. Its delivery apparatus has made our lives infinitely more convenient than at any other time in history. It is for these reasons that unless it is a result of federal force, it is not likely that Amazon is going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry Trump.

Amazon.com And Patreon Are Examples Of Connections-In-Action That Are Reshaping Progress In Our Interconnected World.

/in /by

We live in a fascinating time when historical ways of thinking are being exploded. One of those ways of thinking is linearity. We think of cause and effect, looking for causes whenever we see phenomena that we classify as effects. The stock market went down. What caused it? There’s a war in Syria. What were the causes of war? Amazon.com got huge. Let’s look backwards and reconstruct the decisions and actions that caused this explosive growth, because then we can reverse engineer it and reapply it in the future.

Linear thinking is over.

Networked global exchange platforms like Alibaba and Facebook and, yes, amazon.com, force us to abandon all vestiges of the linear and sequential views of human progress. Searching for consumer dissatisfactions and designing solutions for them is one example of a linear, sequential thought process. Innovation is not about solutions designed by a few; it is about interactions between networks of people and knowledge. Innovating is not a process; it is a set of collaborative practices taking place on these nested, interconnected networks. That’s a challenging idea: progress is made by interconnecting not by identifying problems to be solved.

The next phase.

The next great phase of progress is the bridging of disconnected worlds: interconnecting humans and nonhumans in new ways to build new innovation opportunities. These opportunities can be further explored, and ultimately exploited, through the integration of ideas, tools, images, and languages. There is no predicting the new experiences that will emerge. Once interconnection starts, there is no linear thinking that can chart or even track its progress.

Entrepreneurship Is Simultaneously Individual And Social.

There’s an interesting twist to this non-linear thinking. Entrepreneurship and innovation are no longer merely business issues. We must open up a much broader landscape: social, cultural, material, and contextual. The shared knowing and doing of an interconnected society can improve lives, evolve new institutions, and change culture. Connections-in-action can lead to a new collective sense of co-created markets and social betterment.

These are new perspectives for individuals who are interconnecting in networks. Digital entrepreneurs are shaping markets through their doing and knowing. They create new ways of developing, diffusing, and using knowledge and new ways to generate and promote innovation. Dr. Cristina Mele calls these digital innovators “inno-mediaries.” They encourage new innovators (consumers, communities, and experts) to enter into the co-creation of innovation by enabling new practices and connecting globally distributed resources resources. These new practices emerge from individual acts (entrepreneur as hero), but then become shared practices, available to many. It is the interconnections between knowledgeable individuals—dynamic interconnections that are ever changing, adapting, shifting, and adjusting—that enable new activities. Progress consists in this complex interconnectedness of actors and actions. Individualism consists in the unique efforts we can each undertake and the unique contribution we can each make as a result of the greater intelligence that comes from interconnecting.

Global Exchange Platforms Are the Inno-mediaries.

The global exchange platforms that facilitate interconnection are many and varied. Supply chain companies can check their disruption risk by linking all their global vendors on a platform, linking to real time event information (like natural disasters or political uprisings or transportation disruptions) and assessing the implications of those events as they happen. A rock band can connect to fans, venues, people looking for jobs as roadies or fill-in drummers, and lawyers to protect their songwriting and performance I.P.

Consumers can connect to their general practitioner, and to specialist doctors, to labs for tests and results, to pharmacies and content, and run their own health care management.

One interesting interconnection platform that points towards our cultural future is Patreon. It’s a platform that links creators and artists and writers and anyone who is creatively innovating with patrons – people willing to offer money to support them. In historical times, great artists had patrons. Michelangelo had the Medici family. Leonardo had the Duke of Milan. Now you, if you are a creator, can find your own Medici family (or, more likely, a few $5 / month or $10 / month patrons) on Patreon. Dr. Jordan Peterson, for example, has over 9,000 patrons. His creation goal is “accredited online humanities education to as many people as possible around the world”.

Patreon is one more example of the technologies of spontaneous order. Like never before, creators looking for patrons can connect to anyone in the world and ask for monetary support in their endeavors. We don’t know what will ensue. Great art, new music, new literature, new ways to teach humanities, or new ways to evolve institutions. Connections-in-action can generate all kinds of innovative progress, with no possibility of predicting exactly what the connections will generate. Spontaneous order promises no certainty of outcomes, just the acceleration of progress and betterment for all, through interconnection.

 

This article is adapted from The Interconnected Individual: Seizing Opportunity in the Era of AI, Platforms, Apps, and Global Exchanges, by Hunter Hastings and Jeff Saperstein, to be published by Business Expert Press, July 2018.

You can find Center For Individualism on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/hunterhastings

Uber Doesn’t Think Individuals Should Be Able to Own Self-Driving Cars

/in /by

It’s only a matter of time before American roads are filled only with self-driving cars. Already, the race to develop these vehicles is well underway, as major companies from Volvo to Alphabet Inc, the parent company of Google, are competing to become the first line of autonomous cars to obtain government approval.

While there is no denying the impact these cars of the future will surely have on the way Americans drive, some ridesharing companies would like to make this decision on behalf of consumers. And this is not sitting well with those who have spent years defending companies like Lyft and Uber.  

Fighting the Good Fight

Since its inception, the ridesharing industry has been met with enormous opposition from established cab companies. The latter enjoyed a nearly 80-year monopoly over the taxi sector, as there was simply no better way to operate, and thus no real competition. But the widespread use of smartphones and other technologies have made hailing a cab in the traditional sense inconvenient and outdated.

But instead of responding appropriately to this new competition, the cab industry utilized its connections with local governments in an attempt to regulate ridesharing out of existence. And these cab cronies enjoyed moderate success on this front.

Luckily, the demand for ridesharing was too sizeable to ignore. Consumers preferred the sharing economy to the old way of doing things. And this is largely why the ridesharing sector was able to survive a “David and Goliath” type battle. But now, instead of seeking to understand what the consumers of the near future might actually want, Uber, Lyft, and others are trying to force a new model of car ownership on the American public. And it is one that is simply incompatible with the free market principles that have allowed these companies to achieve success in the first place.

The Hero Becomes the Villain

Imagine a world where private ownership of automobiles is prohibited. If Uber, Lyft, and Zipcar get their way, this might be a reality we soon have to face. In a document entitled, “Shared Mobility Principles for Sustainable Cities,” many major players in the ridesharing sector have laid out their vision for the future of self-driving cars.

While the proposal itself merely spells out the long-term goals of multiple private organizations, its implementations reek of government interference. The first point, for example, states:

“1. WE PLAN OUR CITIES AND THEIR MOBILITY TOGETHER.

The way our cities are built determines mobility needs and how they can be met. Development, urban design and public spaces, building and zoning regulations, parking requirements, and other land use policies shall incentivize compact, accessible, livable, and sustainable cities.”

The last thing consumers need is more zoning regulations. In fact, zoning regulations have horrible consequences that hurt individuals, not helped them.

Another point states:

“7. WE SUPPORT FAIR USER FEES ACROSS ALL MODES.

Every vehicle and mode should pay their fair share for road use, congestion, pollution, and use of curb space. The fair share shall take the operating, maintenance and social costs into account.

Individuals are already paying their “fair share” for road use via forced taxation. No additional cost should be imposed on drivers unless this is done through private, voluntary means. But even many toll roads are just a manifestation of cronyism, making this point just as murky as the first listed in this document.

But the most troubling aspect of the document is saved for the last point, which states:

“10. WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS.

Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.”

Take a second to let this sink in. For years, Uber, Lyft, and others have fought the cab companies and their quest to use the state to enforce regulatory policies. This is what initially made so many free marketeers rally behind the ridesharing sector. Now, after enjoying many victories, the ridesharing sector is trying to create their own monopoly on driverless cars.

While the document itself makes no plan for the enforcement of these rules, enforcement would have to happen for any of these points to become a reality. This means that state involvement would have to happen as the government holds the monopoly on force. Not only is this a huge slap in the face to those who have defended ridesharing over the years specifically because they are against more government regulations, it is also arguably much worse than what the cab companies have done.

Instead of trying to pass new arbitrary regulations, which is absolutely appalling, the ridesharing sector wants to ban private ownership of vehicles altogether. This is extremely dangerous and can only lead to further restrictions that lead towards public, rather than private ownership of market commodities. This pushes us further down the road to serfdom that F.A. Hayek so fervently warned against. But not all those invested in the future of self-driving cars want to abolish private ownership.

The Tesla Network

While scanning through the names of the various companies who have signed on in support of the Shared Mobility Principles for Sustainable Cities, one major player is missing: Tesla.

While Elon Musk has also hypothesized how driverless cars will impact the future of driving, he has made no attempt to propose that private ownership be banned. On the contrary, he has laid out a plan that would allow the owners of his autonomous cars to earn money while their vehicles are not being used.

Musk has, by way of his Master plan, Part Deux, has proposed the “Tesla Network.”

As the document states:

“When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from pretty much anywhere. Once it picks you up, you will be able to sleep, read or do anything else en route to your destination.

You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you’re at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not.

In cities where demand exceeds the supply of customer-owned cars, Tesla will operate its own fleet, ensuring you can always hail a ride from us no matter where you are.”

Where Uber and others want to ban private ownership of vehicles, Tesla wants to give owners the ability to earn extra money through that ownership while also making private ownership accessible to more consumers. This is a plan worthy of praise.

This is not to say that there is no place for an Uber fleet of self-driving cars. Just as many consumers are choosing to use Uber rather than own their own vehicle there will certainly be market demand for this type of service. But this should be the consumer’s choice, not the decision of private companies backed by government force.

Technology is making our lives much more convenient. This is undeniable. But when that convenience comes at the cost of private ownership, there is a huge problem. Ridesharing has changed the way we travel, and Uber and Lyft have played an integral role in making this a reality. They have also been strong opponents of the crony capitalism that has allowed the cab industry to hold a state-sanctioned monopoly for so long. And while these aspects are surely worthy of praise, the proposal to ban private ownership of cars is more than worthy of condemnation.  

This Entrepreneur Provides a Solution to the IRS’s Bureaucratic Mess

/in /by

With tax season upon us, this is typically the busiest time of year for the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) customer service representatives. Like most government agencies, the IRS does not have a great reputation for customer satisfaction. Of course, referring to the American people as, “customers” might be a bit of a stretch since we don’t necessarily have a choice in the matter. Even so, Americans will spend the next few weeks impatiently waiting as we try to get through to the next available representative. 

According to an article in the Washington Free Beacon, the IRS has only answered 15.6 percent of the incoming customer service calls in 2016. Most of us expect nothing less from a bureaucratic branch of the federal government, still, those numbers are not very reassuring. In fact, by March of 2016, a month before the tax deadline, the IRS had only answered 6.3 million calls out of the 40.5 million it received. During the 2015 tax season, 83.2 million calls attempted to reach the IRS, but only 8.3 million were ever answered. Though this year currently has a 5.6 percent lead over the 2015 average, there is substantial room for improvement.  

On a positive note, average wait times have gone down slightly, but it is still a huge burden for those who already have restrictive schedules.  Seeing an opportunity to cash in on government incompetence, a new startup is changing the way we communicate with the IRS. 

EnQ has decided to use robots to assist customers attempting to reach the IRS. For a small fee, EnQ will have a robot wait on hold for the IRS in your stead, leaving you free to get back to your regular life. The fees are dependent on how much time the robots are able to save for each customer. Typically though, the fees range from $1 to $7, well worth the freedom of not being glued to your phone.  

After taking to the internet to rant about being kept on hold by the IRS for 85 minutes, Washington Post columnist, Gene Weingarten was contacted by the creator of EnQ, Andre Valiente.  

In his retelling of the conversation, Weingarten explained his reluctance to support Valiente’s efforts. “Okay, wait a minute. Every time you do this, it makes the wait time longer for everyone else already on hold. People like me, who are not paying you extortion. You are jumping someone else ahead of me,” Weingarten told Valiente. After a string of skeptical comments Weingarten described as his “inner Bernie Sanders” coming out, Viliente went on to defend his company.  

“All innovation is disruptive, and there will always be some people unhappy initially. But what I do is leverage technology to bring efficiency to an inefficient system. It’s the American dream to reward that!” 

For those of us sick of waiting on hold to speak to an IRS representative ever year, this is a game changer. Though it might not fully abolish the bitter feelings tax season arouses within us all, this is definitely an example of the free market making bureaucracy more tolerable.  

Expanded Opportunities For The Economically Augmented Individual.

/in /by

There is great news from the age of cloud computing, cognitive assistance, global exchange platforms and blockchain. All the advantages entrepreneurs enjoy as individual economic actors can now be augmented. We all have far more individual economic power than we could ever have imagined.

We can download scale from the internet, we can access all forms of knowledge through cognitive assistants, and we can refine the quality of our knowledge with data and analytic insights. Using the Service Thinking framework[1], we can improve our capabilities in serving others, which is the ultimate key to economic success in the Individual Economy.

Scale for everyone.

Assume that all scale is available, from “one man band” to “globally networked, unlimited computing power, fully expandable storage capacity”.

Abundant knowledge.

Assume all knowledge in the field you choose is available via networks, queries, intelligent search and cognitive assistance.

Add more and more skills to your repertoire.

Assume that you can acquire appropriate skills throughout your life journey through the individual economy – the right skills at the right time. These can be acquired through on line learning and on-the-job application. The on-line learning component is increasingly becoming tradable as a result of badging and certification. When badges and certificates are recognized worldwide and represent a standard of accomplishment that all searchers for talent can trust, then your value in the individual global economy is enhanced by your possession of these tokens of knowledge and learning.

Data and analytics at your service.

Assume that any insights you seek to derive will be available, given sufficient data and the appropriate analytics. There’s an algorithm for that.

Service Thinking turns your empathy into a service business.

Using empathy, as well as behavioral analysis and experience mapping and other service design techniques, you can identify service innovation opportunities that you can address with new solutions. You can do this as an individual, decide which service field you choose entrepreneurially to enter, and proceed to business planning and market entry.

We’ll all enjoy cognitive assistance.

At a rapidly accelerating rate, artificial intelligence and machine learning are being deployed in the form of cognitive assistance. A cognitive assistant is software that responds to your need for knowledge. Let’s imagine you are working as a legal researcher. You are tasked with preparing a defense for a client. You would describe the facts of the case (probably using voice activation, just as you would with Siri or Alexa) to a cognitive assistant specifically designed for paralegal work. The cognitive assistant would parse your description and present you with details of the 10 most relevant legal precedents, in ranked order of relevance, with links to the underlying statutes. The assistant would stand by for your next request, which might be to compose a first draft of a defense document. This capability already exists: IBM’s Haifa research lab built IBM Argumentor as a form of deep learning for legal analysis.

But cognitive assistance does not have to be so advanced. Your smartphone can perform as a cognitive assistant. Let’s imagine you operate a business repairing household appliances for homeowners in your community. Using your smartphone, the internet and a search engine, you can access the operating manual and parts list for every model number of every home appliance you encounter. Does this model of Sub-Zero brand of refrigerator-freezer have a water filter on the ice-making unit? What is the part number? How can I order a replacement? How is it installed? All of this knowledge and much more is quickly and easily available for the asking. It’s augmentation: providing more knowledge, at the time and place it’s needed, and providing you with more confidence that you can tackle any issue, while enhancing your reputation with your customer.

The Individual Economy is here.

In the individual economy, it is reasonable to assume that you can augment your personal capability and resources to the extent necessary to achieve your goals. Decide on what it is you want to do without first worrying about the scale of your resources.

[1] Hunter Hastings and Jeff Saperstein: Service Thinking: The Seven Principles To Discover Innovative Opportunities; Business Expert Press, 2014, pp65-7

The Inconvenient Truth about Nordic Socialism

/in , /by

A Millennial, I never cease to be amazed by my own generation’s obsession with socialism. While I don’t expect most people to have read The Road to Serfdom, the internet age has made information available at the click of a button. Yet, so many my one age refuse to do this. Instead, they rely on sensational rhetoric that promises economic equality for all, not realizing that this is not as easy as it may sound, or feasible.

One of the most surprising elements of the last election season was the outpouring of support many young Americans threw behind the self-proclaimed “socialist,” Senator Bernie Sanders. While addressing a large audience during a presidential debate, the senator from Vermont stated, “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”

This praise of what is often referred to as the “Nordic” model, was a common theme woven throughout Senator Sander’s presidential campaign. However, while Sanders repeatedly praised the Nordic model as a prime example of a socialist success story, he failed to realize–or at least acknowledge– that the Nordic model’s prosperity was due to the same free-market components he often speaks out against.

By its very definition socialism exists when the state controls the means of production. However, this definition does not apply to the Nordic model. In these countries, the means of production are primarily owned by private entities and not the government, something Sanders is strictly opposed to.

While giving a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the Prime Minister of Denmark rebutted this myth that his nation is a socialist country by saying, “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Yet, despite efforts to correct this misconception about the Nordic model, Sanders and his supporters continue to associate these countries with socialism. Since Nordic nations have long been known for their long lifespans, high rates of happiness, and economic prosperity, proponents of collectivism credit socialism for these successes. Unfortunately for socialist proponents, many of these desirable qualities were achieved through free-market means and not through a socialist economy.

It’s true that Nordic nations are infamously known for having expansive welfare states which exist to support its citizens from cradle to grave. However, while these welfare states are often said to be the reason Nordic nations experience so much overall success, many forget (or simply do not understand) that this economic and social prosperity occurred before the welfare state was introduced.

While Denmark currently has the highest rate of taxation among any developed nation around the globe, at the time of the Nordic “boom,” the tax rate was only 25 percent of the nation’s GDP. As it turns out, this was actually lower than the 27 percent of GDP that America was taxing its citizens at the exact same time.

When it comes to praising the Nordic welfare state for its citizens’ long lifespan, it is also worth noting that in 1960, before universal health care became a pillar of the Nordic model,  Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes all experienced longer lifespans than Americans. However, since introducing universal health care the average lifespan in each country has actually decreased.

Another fascinating point worth discussing is how Nordic citizens who immigrated to America compare to those still living in the region.

Currently, Danish Americans enjoy a standard of living that is said to be 55 percent higher than those still residing in Denmark. Likewise, Swedish Americans experience a standard of living that is 53 percent higher than their native Swedish counterparts, and Finnish Americans are living in conditions 59 percent higher than those still living in Finland.

While it is clear that the myths surrounding the success of the Nordic model are misleading, there are still many young people who cling to socialist ideals. For those who still desire further proof that collectivists economies are not all they are cracked up to be, Venezuela presents a perfect, albeit grim example, of how devastating a truly socialist economy can be on a country and its people.

Peter Thiel Has Had Enough with Silicon Valley’s Love of Regulation

/in /by

Peter Thiel is a brilliant businessman. Ranked number four on Forbes “Midas List,” and number 315 on Forbes “400,” Thiel has a net worth of $2.6 billion. Without his entrepreneurial genius, the world would not know the ease of sending payments to vendors via Paypal, which he founded in 1999. But PayPal is just one of the many brainchildren of Thiel.

Thiel has been one of the most prominent players in the tech industry in Silicon Valley. But this chapter of his life about to come to an end. Fed up with the love of regulation so prominent in the San Francisco area, Thiel has decided to scale back his involvement in the mecca of the tech world.

Silicon Valley’s Love of Regulations 

On paper, Thiel’s successes may not set him apart from other tech giants in Silicon Valley. But Thiel is very different than most of his colleagues. Thiel has always been very open about his dedication to free market principles and libertarian-leaning politics. In fact, his political activism has also led him to dabble in revolutionary ideas of decentralization, including his support of floating islands called “seasteading.”

But it is precisely this love of liberty and unbridled innovation that is alienating him from others in San Francisco. During a debate at Stanford University, Thiel referred to Silicon Valley as, “a one-party state. That’s when you get in trouble politically in our society, when you’re all in one side.”

Silicon Valley has a long history of leaning more to the left side of the political spectrum.  Thiel rightfully believes that this political ideology is dangerous to innovators in the tech world, as it advocates for further regulation. Regulation that will, of course, inhibit the ability to bring many brilliant ideas to fruition.

This was one of his main reasons for supporting the now President Trump in the 2016 election cycle. Thiel caught a lot of criticism for this move, but it ultimately comes down to the more relaxed regulatory stance of the current administration.

Dedication to Principles 

Love him or hate him, Trump has done a great deal to lessen the regulatory blow felt by many innovators and entrepreneurs like Thiel. In fact, Trump has already slashed more regulations than Ronald Reagan who, prior to Trump, held the record for deregulation.

And even though Silicon Valley, as well as the rest of the economy, would benefit greatly from the slashing of regulatory policies, the hatred for Trump is blinding many. This has caused many to turn their backs on Thiel as well. In fact, the CEO of Netflix and Facebook board member, Reed Hastings, wrote in an email that Thiel’s support of Trump demonstrated, “catastrophically bad judgment.”

Between Silicon Valley’s love of increased regulation and their condemnation of Thiel’s political leanings, he is finally calling it a day and relocating to Los Angeles. In fact, Thiel, who also happens to serve as the director of the Facebook board, is considering abandoning this post as well, a position he has held since 2005.

Not only does his decision to leave highlight Thiel’s own dedication to his work and his free market principles, it also highlights the absurdity of Silicon Valley.

Our country is overburdened with regulation. And it is precisely this red tape that prevents would-be entrepreneurs from sharing their genius with the rest of the world. But perhaps, this is why the big shots in Silicon Valley are so opposed to fewer barriers to entry.

Many of the Silicon Valley’s biggest players benefit from increased regulations, as it keeps their competitors from gaining entry into the market. Established businesses can afford to comply with regulations, whereas the newer, smaller startups cannot. An increase in regulation shields these companies from actually having to compete in the market.  

But by slashing unnecessary regulation, which accounts for most, if not all of the regulations on the books today, more innovators are able to enter the market and compete with major players in the tech world. And when there are more players in the market, the consumers win.

On The Road To Individualism, Choose Networks Over Hierarchies.

/in /by

Who are we up against? We seek a spontaneous order society in which we each make our own efforts to serve others, and accept and learn from the decisions of the marketplace as to the value of those efforts. We respond to both the negative and positive feedback to refine our service offer and we commit to continuous improvement. Who is against us?

Firstly, government. We have evolved in our society to the point where government exists to repress the efforts of individuals. The reason is that it seeks out large special interest groups it can recruit as support by providing them special privileges and protection from innovation and competition. Innovation comes from individuals with new ideas. Government hates new ideas.

Within the general heading of government, we can include the elected legislators who formulate the code of conduct for the bureaucrats of the executive branch, and the bureaucrats themselves who both expand and act upon the rule-weaponry the legislators give them, and the judiciary who protect the entire structure. We can meet these enemies of individualism at the federal, state and local level.

We also must never forget the military. They have all the guns, and their powers of repression are unlimited.

The special interest groups that the government assembles against are led by the education industry, who run the propaganda mills to embed a spirit of dependency into the young generation before they are mature enough to for their own opinions. Closely following are the other unionized industries who engineer redistributive transfer schemes from the innovative and productive parts of the economic system.

We must also include the crony sectors who utilize proximity to government and integration of purpose to further their own sectional interests at our expense: the financial sector, the media sector, the industrial sectors that supply hardware and services to the government and the military, and, recently becoming more prominent in the crony sector, the data industry.

It’s a daunting array. It’s probably unbeatable. But it’s not inescapable. Individuals can live lives that suffer the least intrusion from enemies and achieve the most through self-reliance and self-efficacy. We’ll still pay taxes and stop at red lights to avoid the penalties for not doing so, but beyond that we can be proactive.

How? By recognizing that all of these organizations are hierarchies designed to exert power, and by choosing instead to adopt networks as our counter-hierarchical organizational tool.

Avoid hierarchy.

Hierarchies are power structures in which you don’t have any power. To join a hierarchy is to abase oneself, according to Neil Ferguson’s latest study. It is better today to be in a network, where you can cultivate your ability to influence, than in a hierarchy which gives you no power.

The most power-consuming hierarchy of all, taking yours to accumulate its own, is government. The basic structure is that the government is at the top and you are at the bottom, powerless. So, to the extent possible, don’t participate.

Network strategically.

In a network, you are a node, with infinite options. You can connect to virtually anyone anywhere in the world today. You can connect to virtually any knowledge, most of it free. You can connect to a vast amount of resources, from education to Open-AI to financing your business. You can choose what organizations you want to belong to, or choose not to belong to an organization. You can be an independent contractor, working on projects, or marketing your services to customers and clients that you find online. You can choose the clients you want to serve, such as small and local firms or creative companies you feel aligned with, or tech startups who need your help. They may have hierarchical organizations, but you are not controlled by the hierarchy.

Your meta-organization will be a set of nested and overlapping interconnected networks that you design and you opt into. Hierarchical power relationships are replaced by quality of connection. How much value are you giving and how much are you getting in return?

You can’t avoid the government. But you can keep a low profile. And you can avoid the compliance department, the HR department, the performance appraisal process and the mandatory company picnics and holiday parties.

If you choose network rather than hierarchy, you can avoid those who seek to block the road to individualism.

 

To Make Real Change, Clean Your Room before Cleaning up the World

/in /by

There is a reason so many prominent entrepreneurs take a deep interest in the self-improvement genre: It is essential to professional growth and success. And with personal growth comes the power to truly change the world.  

Personalities like Tim Ferriss, Tony Robbins, and even the late Dale Carnegie, have all enjoyed immense success in their fields, which makes others seek out their wisdom so that they might replicate it to some degree.

But these wizards of the business world do not focus solely on business advice alone. Instead, they encourage their supporters to spend a great deal of their time improving themselves, so that they may become better innovators.

Many of us are so focused on our desire to change the world that we forget that we must first get our own lives in order to be truly impactful. But therein lies the true beauty of individualism: by improving yourself you will be better suited for success.

Echoing this same sentiment, psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has been making waves lately by inspiring others to clean up their rooms, before attempting to enact greater change in the world.

Clean up Your Room

In an interview with podcast host Joe Rogan, Dr. Peterson implores listeners to clean their rooms before they attempted to take on greater projects.

During this segment he said:

“…don’t be fixing up the economy, 18-year-olds. You don’t know anything about the economy. It’s a massive complex machine beyond anyone’s understanding and you mess with at your peril. So can you even clean up your own room? No. Well you think about that. You should think about that, because if you can’t even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?”

This is advice that economic philosophers Leonard Read and Ludwig von Mises would agree with. Since the economy is such a complex mechanism, attempting to centrally plan it is useless, if not completely detrimental. The same is true of our personal lives. How can we give guidance to others if our own lives are not in order?

This is why Peterson suggests the following:

“My sense is that if you want to change the world, you start from yourself and work outward, because you build your competence that way.”

This sentiment expressed by Peterson is similar to that of Joseph Campbell, who made popular the concept of the hero’s journey. The hero’s journey is a celebration of individualism and the impact we can have on the world by overcoming our own challenges.

Campbell said:

“We’re not on our journey to save the world but to save ourselves. But in doing that, you save the world. The influence of a vital person vitalizes.”

So many of us are eager to tell others what to do when in many instances, we haven’t even taken our own own advice. But by making a concerted effort to tackle adversity one small step at a time, we can gain the courage and the skills necessary to take on bigger projects.  

Peterson Continues:

“The world presents itself as a series of puzzles some of which you’re capable of solving and some of which you’re not. You have many puzzles in front of you that you could solve but you choose not to. Those are the things that weigh on your conscience. It’s like ‘I should really do this,’ but you don’t…

…you consult your conscience and it says, ‘Well, you know, that place over there could use a little work.’ It’s the same as working on yourself. And so you clean that up, because you can. And then things are a little clearer around you. And you’re a little better off, because you’ve practiced a bit. And so you’re a little stronger. And then something else manifest itself and says, ‘Well maybe you can take a crack at fixing me too.’ So you decide to do that and that gets a little more pristine.”

In another speech on the same topic, he finishes this train of thought by saying:

“…and then maybe you’ll learn enough by doing that so that you can fix up your family a little bit, and then having done that, you’ll have enough character so that when you try to operate in the world, at your job, or maybe in the broader social spheres, that you’ll be a force for good instead of harm…”

While this may seem like simple advice, it is wisdom that has lost its merit over the years. Many people expect success to be handed to them simply because they want it. But success without growth is meaningless.

Whether it be in politics or the business world, if you want to make a true, lasting impact on the world, you must start by looking within first. By changing yourself before seeking to have a grander impact on the world, you are a true individualist.

Write for CFI