Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Economic Opportunities Don’t “Exist”. Entrepreneurs Create Them.

/in /by

Economists have only a very misty view of entrepreneurship, even though it’s the force that drives economic growth. Not only can they not measure its impact, they can’t even define it.

Peter Klein is one of the exceptions among economists, however. That may be because he started out from a business perspective, studying corporate governance and organizational economics and M&A. Now he’s a Professor Of Entrepreneurship at Baylor and a Fellow of The Baugh Center For Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise. Sounds like he is focused on the right things.

In a 2016 essay entitled My Contributions To Entrepreneurship Theory, Prof Klein does a remarkable thing. He destroys all existing theories of entrepreneurship and what entrepreneurs do, and suggests a new one.

Firstly, let’s get straight what we’re talking about when we use the term entrepreneur. It does not refer to self-employed persons, small business owners, or high tech start-up innovators (although all three might act entrepreneurially). In economics, entrepreneurship is a function dealing with how best to allocate resources and how to create value for consumers and customers. Who does this? Not the government, not giant corporate bureaucracies, and certainly not professors of economics. Entrepreneurs do it. If we leave them alone in this activity, we will realize the highest economic growth and the best economic outcomes for everyone.

For one group of economists, entrepreneurship is “alertness” to opportunities that exist in the marketplace. An alert entrepreneur observes the opportunity and makes the appropriate trades to capitalize on it, buying undervalued resources low, and rearranging them to sell high. It’s entrepreneurship as mere arbitrage.

We see the same view expressed in corporate marketing: conduct research to ask consumers what they want and then make it for them. As Steve Jobs famously grumped, how could they possibly know?

Professor Klein challenges the “opportunity” view of entrepreneurship head on. What if the opportunity does not “exist”? What if the entrepreneur’s contribution is to create it?

In this construct, the entrepreneur assesses the current state of the marketplace with a unique individual perspective. He or she then imagines a future state that could be an improvement for the consumer – a better service, a faster delivery, a lower price, a new experience. The entrepreneur then makes a decision – an act of will as Carl Menger phrased it – to acquire, own, control, deploy and redeploy resources in the service of that improvement for the consumer.

The key element of this act of will, says Professor Klein, is uncertainty. The entrepreneur does not know in advance whether the action will be successful But they do have an expectation that they, as individuals, have the wherewithal and the capacity to bring their imagined future state to reality. In his words, they act under conditions of uncertainty. They create new firms, new products, new services and new markets under conditions of uncertainty – something that people without entrepreneurial grit would not tackle. Alertness is hardly enough.

Action is the unit of analysis for entrepreneurship. The subjective attitude to undertake an act of will with a high degree of uncertainty about the outcome is the variable that determines whether some of us will be entrepreneurs and some will not. Some entrepreneurs make a profit because their bet turns out to be right, and some make a loss. And, in fact, the data suggest that most people who exhibit the entrepreneurial attitude continue to keep trying in the face of such losses and often eventually succeed.

Entrepreneurs are the reason why the rest of us enjoy economic growth, improved services, better products, and more comfortable lifestyles. They bring us not only the ideas for driverless cars, but also pizza delivered to our doors because that’s more convenient for us than going to the restaurant. They might fly a Tesla to Mars, but also invent an apple that doesn’t turn brown, because consumers think brown apples are yukky.

None of these opportunities “existed”. Entrepreneurs created them. Consumers are grateful. Economists are confused. Except for Professor Klein.

Mises Knew That the Division of Labor Promotes Peace

/in /by

War is absolutely devastating. There is no dancing around that fact. Not only is it responsible for the loss of countless human lives, it also leaves an immeasurable amount of physical and emotional destruction in its wake.

Opponents of war may decry war until they are blue in the face, begging those in power to consider its human costs. But these cries almost always fall upon deaf ears, as history has tragically demonstrated.

When it comes to politicians and war, the ends always justify the means, even when those means are human lives. And while human life is sacred, this truth alone has never been enough to convince global leaders to seek an agenda of peace rather than one of destruction.

But the market has taught us that incentives work. So instead of relying on a method that has not done much to deter war over the centuries, why not try an argument that plays to the interests of those in power?

As Mises explains in Liberalism, the most impactful argument against war comes in the form of a basic economic principle from which we each benefit: the division of labor.

He writes:

“How harmful war is to the development of human civilization becomes clearly apparent once one understands the advantages derived from the division of labor. The division of labor turns the self-sufficient individual into the ζῷον πολιτικόν (social animal) dependent on his fellow men, the social animal of which Aristotle spoke.”

The Division of Labor

The division of labor plays a huge role in each of our lives. Every time we go to the supermarket or the office, we are seeing the division of labor in action. Since each individual is gifted with different comparative advantages, it makes sense that each would specialize in the field where their contribution is most efficient and thus, most useful. This is why some of us are farmers while others are lawyers. And it is this system that has given us a market robust with choice.

As Mises explains:

“If a number of men work in cooperation in accordance with the principle of the division of labor, they will produce (other things being equal) not only as much as the sum of what they would have produced by working as self-sufficient individuals, but considerably more.”

If I really wanted to, I could spend my time being a jack-of-all-trades, attempting to supply all my basic necessities for myself. But this would make it almost impossible to master more than one specific trade. So instead of growing my own food, sewing my own clothes, or building my own home, I rely on others who have specialized in each of these fields. By doing so, I free up my time so that I am able to focus on my own unique set of skills and talents.

The division of labor is so important to civilization that Mises writes, “All human civilization is founded on this fact. It is by virtue of the division of labor that man is distinguished from the animals.” And while the division of labor may separate us from nature’s wild creatures, there is nothing more animalistic than war, as Mises also notes:

“War, carnage, destruction, and devastation we have in common with the predatory beasts of the jungle; constructive labor is our distinctively human characteristic.”

Reframing the Conversation

The argument in favor of human dignity may strike a blow to the hearts of many, but it has never been enough to deter the powerful and power-hungry from waging war. But one thing the powerful understand well is self-interest, and therein lies the key to an effective anti-war argument.

Mises writes:

“There are high-minded men who detest war because it brings death and suffering. However much one may admire their humanitarianism, their argument against war, in being based on philanthropic grounds, seems to lose much or all of its force when we consider the statements of the supporters and proponents of war.”

This is why Mises proposes reframing the debate. For the warmonger, unconcerned or at least unfazed by the human toll of war, conflict does have political benefits. For these warmongers, as Mises writes:

“War is the father of all things, said a Greek philosopher, and thousands have repeated it after him. Man degenerates in time of peace. Only war awakens in him slumbering talents and powers and imbues him with sublime ideals. If war were to be abolished, mankind would decay into indolence and stagnation.”

And while humanity may not rank high on the state’s hierarchy of values, trade, commerce, and luxurious foreign imports most certainly do. In truth, war is the destroyer of all things and the market is the creator. Since conflict interferes with the free exchange of goods and service among those on opposite sides, it serves only to hurt all parties involved.

Mises touches on this when he says:

“Self-sufficient farmers, who produce on their own farms everything that they and their families need, can make war on one another. But when a village divides into factions, with the smith on one side and the shoemaker on the other, one faction will have to suffer from want of shoes, and the other from want of tools and weapons.”

As has already been discussed, few people pursue isolated production (“autarky”), simply because it is not in our best interest to do so. Our lives would be filled with labor and toil with no room left for much else. To go back to such an existence in our modern world would be unthinkable. And yet war is always on the table, when that too should be seen as a completely unreasonable especially when considering our economic reliance on other countries.

We Need Each Other

There is a misconception that liberals are atomistic in their worldview. But liberals understand better than anyone that isolation would benefit nobody. Understanding the importance of the division of labor reminds us how much value others bring into each of our lives, even if indirectly. And it makes us realize that war should be avoided at all costs.

As Mises writes:

“In order to provide the family of an English worker with all it consumes and desires, every nation of the five continents cooperates. Tea for the breakfast table is provided by Japan or Ceylon, coffee by Brazil or Java, sugar by the West Indies, meat by Australia or Argentina, cotton from America or Egypt, hides for leather from India or Russia, and so on.”

And in our modern world, this economic interdependence is even more intense than in Mises’ day. The fact of the matter is that many, if not most, of our electronics are made abroad. As Americans we enjoy these products not really absorbing what “made in China” really means.

If we were to go to war with an electronic manufacturing giant like China, imports from that country into the United States would stop. Sure, we may not feel the sting immediately, but as soon as you look to replace your old smartphone, and find the new model to be no better yet twice as expensive, you would soon realize how much we rely on our foreign allies for products we use on a daily basis.

As Mises says:

“At the beginning of the nineteenth century by far the greater part of the inhabited world was still divided into a number of economic regions that were, by and large, self-sufficient…The development of a complex network of international economic relations is a product of nineteenth-century liberalism and capitalism. They alone made possible the extensive specialization of modern production with its concomitant improvement in technology.”

Peace Creates

War only destroys. Peace, on the other hand, creates. As a line from a song in the Broadway musical, Rent exclaims, “The opposite of war isn’t peace, it’s creation.”

Peace is what has allowed us to each specialize in one area, while benefiting from the division of labor. Peace is what has given the world access to the precious treasures of foreign nations. Can you imagine a life without spices imported from abroad or various food items? If not for peace and trade, the United States may have never tasted chocolate, and what a tragedy that would have been!

And this is something even politicians can appreciate.

How Entrepreneurs Would Solve The School Shooting Problem.

/in /by

School shootings like the one that took place Feb 15th in Parkland, FL, are tragedies. When they occur, we hear our Presidents, Governors, law enforcement officials and school boards talk about solutions. But solutions never come. Solving problems comes from innovation, and innovation does not come from institutions. It comes from entrepreneurs. Here’s how entrepreneurs might go about solving the problem.

Treat the problem as a market need.

Entrepreneurs understand dissatisfactions among consumers and customers. They ask, what is the dissatisfaction we are trying to solve, and who is the audience who feels the problem? In this case, it is parents. They want to send their children to a safe place to learn, and they are uncertain whether that safety, while promised, is being delivered. Entrepreneurs will try to replace that uncertainty with a feeling of greater confidence.

Start a firm.

Entrepreneurs address market needs by owning, controlling, deploying and redeploying resources. This control comes through private property ownership, exercised through a firm. They would form one for the express purpose of solving the market problem. They would eschew government and institutional authorities as much as possible, since they can only hinder by placing obstacles.

Take Responsibility.

In taking on the problem, the entrepreneur takes responsibility. They tell their prospective customers that they are developing an offering that the customer can try, and accept it if it works and reject it if its inadequate. If it fails, the responsibility is the entrepreneur’s.  Contrast this attitude with of law enforcement, who refuse to take any responsibility.

Find Creative Solutions.

Entrepreneurs are creative. They find new ideas, either in their own heads or from others. They will assess those ideas, and try those that have a chance of success. For example, Scarlett Lewis, parent of a child killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting, supports a program called social and emotional learning. It teaches children how to manage their emotions, and cultivate empathy and positive relationships. It seems to have measurably positive results. Entrepreneurs would put such a program into place. Or perhaps the answer is social media surveillance to identify patterns that portend dangerous behavior by a potential shooter. Some parents might find this an excessive invasion of privacy. Some might find it a suitable application of available technology to lower risk. Let the market decide.

The solution might lie in gates and walls, or a posse of volunteer Dads. The entrepreneur will welcome all the ideas, test the ones with most promise, and advance the ones with best results.

Track Outcomes.

It is quite possible that some parents would be offended by some of the proposed ideas. Or, they might prefer other ideas like gun control. These subjective points of view tend to be emotional, idiosyncratic and inconsistent. The entrepreneur tries to look beyond subjectivity to objective results. In which solution do parents find most confidence? Which ones are they willing to pay for? Which schools using which systems have the best safety record? An outcomes orientation guides the market to the best solution.

Compete.

A single entrepreneur will not come up with the single right solution alone. Where there is a marketplace, there is competition. Or, as economist Jesus Huerta de Soto puts it, emulous rivalry – many people trying to solve the same problem, probably with different recipes, all trying for customer approval. The best value solution wins out, and several solutions can win market share. The beneficiaries are the parents, who have alternative choices from which to select.

Make A Profit.

Profit is the market signal that the entrepreneur has been successful in devising a solution in which customers perceive value, and for which they are willing to pay more than it costs the solution provider. In which case, the solution will continue to be provided. If there is no profit, then there is no market. Or a lower cost solution must be sought.

Entrepreneurship is the unlimited resource in free societies to solve any problem that can be expressed as a market need. Let’s utilize it as much as we can, especially when the need is dire.

 

The Entrepreneur Will Save the American Health Care System

/in /by

The American health care system had become the perfect poster child for cronyism long before Obamacare went into effect. Insurance companies, health care providers, and the government have become so intertwined, it’s almost impossible to discern where one ends and the other begins.

While candidates of all ideological persuasions campaign on replacing, repealing, maintaining, or even expanding Obamacare, at this point public and private health care institutions have become so entangled there is almost no feasible way to untie the knot.

Instead of looking to Washington to fix a problem they are at least partially responsible for creating, the private market has taken matters into its own hands by providing options.

The Surgery Center of Oklahoma, for example, discovered that in order to offer patients the best quality care for the lowest possible prices, they were going to have to opt out of the traditional health care system altogether.

Prospective patients visiting the center’s website will notice that each procedure offered comes with its own set price tag. By choosing not to accept any insurance policies, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma is able to set its own prices, which often end up being more affordable than services rendered through a traditional hospital and then processed through a third-party insurance company.

To illustrate just how cost-effective this model is, in 2012  Reason compared the costs of a surgical procedure (a “complex bilateral sinus procedure”) performed by Dr. Jason Sigmon before he began working with the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, to afterward. While still working at a traditional hospital, the procedure costs a patient $33,505  not including fees for the anesthesiologist and surgeon. The same procedure performed by Dr. Sigmon at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma only cost his patient $5,885, which is all-inclusive.

“The pricing outlined on this website is not a teaser, nor is it a bait-and-switch ploy. It is the actual price you will pay,” the Surgery Center of Oklahoma’s website states.

For anyone who has ever tried to inquire about the cost of a surgical procedure at a regular hospital, it is almost impossible to get a definitive answer. This is because, in many cases, the hospital is able to charge more depending on the patient’s personal health insurance policy. Since each plan is different, they can charge different amounts for the same procedure..

By avoiding the endless red tape and bureaucracy innate with third party insurance companies, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma has been able to provide patient-centered care that is centered on free-market principles rather than government mandates.

One of the most appealing aspects of the free market is its resiliency. No matter how economically oppressive a government may be, the market has always found a way to meet consumer demands in spite of crippling regulation.

6 Reasons Why Individualism Is The Best Social System For Everyone.

/in /by

In his 12 Rules For Life, Dr. Jordan Peterson observes that our current world is “dividing and polarizing and drifting towards chaos”. He advises that, to avoid catastrophe, we each bring forward the truth as we see it, and reveal it for others to see, so that we can find common ground and proceed together. This is the paradox of Individualism. It is the only way to find common ground.

1 Everyone Follows Their Own Individual Conscience.

Individualists avoid the lure of collectives, who cloak their vice in expressions of virtue, promising to protect your interests, when, really, they have only their special interests in mind. Individualists divorce themselves from government, school districts, political parties, unions, identity groups, organized religion, and any collective that requires an individual to align his or her thinking with that of the group. It doesn’t mean that we refuse to pay taxes or fail to stop at red lights or keep our children out of school. It does mean that we examine our own conscience to find the truth as we see it, not as groupthink tells us to see it.

2 All property is private property, so I know what’s mine and respect what’s yours.

Following your conscience is philosophy of individual life. Private property is economics, which Ludwig von Mises described as the philosophy of human life and action, the essential part of civilization. Civilization requires just a few general rules to make it work. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t initiate violence against a fellow human being. Distinguishing between what’s mine and what’s yours, and thereby differentiating our spheres of individual responsibility, is one of those standing rules to live by, expressed in private property and property rights.

3 Everyone is free to try their best, to see what they can achieve.

When we know what is ours individually, including our body and mind as well as our private property, we can orient ourselves properly and set ourselves towards success. It turns out that in a free market based on property rights, success is tied to serving others. We succeed via empathy with others’ needs, and taking action to address those needs with our services. We try to find a different and better way to deliver our services via what Adam Smith called the division of labor and David Hume called the partition of employments. We all find our specialty and our niche. We cultivate unique knowledge. We do what we do better than anyone else can do it. We take pride in our differentiation, and meaning in the responsibility of developing it.

4 Each individual contribution is tested and corrected by others.

How do we know if our efforts to serve others actually create value in those others’ eyes? We get market feedback. Others tell us, by buying or not buying, demonstrating customer loyalty or not, paying the price we ask or bargaining it down. The feedback can take different forms – attendance at our church, likes on our Facebook page, invitations to social events. All of this feedback falls under the heading of testing and correcting our best efforts. Individualists embrace the data; we’re glad the market is free enough to provide it. We use it as a means to improve and to help us reach our goal. If we are not able to get individual feedback – if the data that’s reaching us is filtered through someone else’s lens, or is “positioned” to us by some collective ideology – we are not fully participating and we are unable to achieve our highest purpose and meaning.

5 No-one is qualified to pass final judgment on others’ capacities or what they can do.

Should we all be equal? Certainly not in what we can achieve, because, in the division of labor, we each want to demonstrate that we can provide better service to others and be worthy of our hire. This is how individuals find their own level. To quote Dr. Jordan Peterson again, there is “a brutal principle of unequal distribution” anywhere that creative production is required. A handful of authors sell all the books. Four classical composers (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Tchaikovsky) wrote virtually all the music played by modern orchestras. Equality of outcomes is not available to us. But each of us can strive to be the best at what we do, to contribute as much as we can to the need of all others, and thereby achieve as much as we can, without anyone else telling us when to stop, or how far we can go. Individualism is opposed to all privilege, and on all limits to what able individuals can achieve.

6 The individual’s reward corresponds to the value of the service rendered to others.

When market feedback indicates approval of the individual’s efforts, it’s a signal for further entrepreneurial action. Do more, reach more customers, treat more patients, raise more money for your non-profit, add new features to make the service even better. If the signal remains strong, keep adding. That signal is profit, both monetary and psychic. If the marketplace perceives a continuing value in the entrepreneur’s service offering, there’s potential for a long-lasting profit stream. Most of that profit is typically ploughed into further investment to enhance service quality; or, alternatively, competitors invest in new improvements. In all cases, the customer – and society – wins.

Individualism does not refer to the existence of isolated or self-contained or selfish individuals. Social order is the result of individual actions, because each of us follows incentives to contribute as much as possible to the needs of others. The way we take part in the more extended and complex social process is through the market for our services. Individualism is an entrepreneurial order that creates a thriving society for all.

 

The Year Local Entrepreneurs Funded The Olympics

/in /by

When it came time for cities around the globe to begin bidding to host the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, nobody wanted to volunteer. At the time, hosting the Olympic Games was seen for what it truly is: financially risky.

In the wake of the 1976 Summer Olympic Games, host city Montréal found itself $1.5 billion in debt; an amount the Canadian city was finally able to pay off in just 2006.

Put off by the financial setbacks experienced by Montréal and still grappling with the turmoil and political unrest left by the Cold War, the 1984 Summer Games were not particularly popular when it came to attracting potential host cities. In fact, only two cities even officially bid to host the 1984 Olympic Games: New York City and Los Angeles.

Los Angeles won the bid in the end, but its residents were not enthusiastic about this decision nor were they willing to foot the bill. The people of Los Angeles were so adamant about protecting their tax dollars from wasteful spending that they proceeded to pass a city charter prohibiting the use of public funds to be used for Olympic facilities. The city now had the honor of hosting the Olympic Games, but no way to pay for it.

Fortunately, a local businessman with a reputation for being budget-conscious stepped up and spearheaded the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee (LA84). Comprised of other successful entrepreneurs and business-savvy individuals, the Committee’s goal was simple: find private funding for the Olympic Games, a feat that had never been done before.

Critics were not initially sold on the idea of leaving the fate of the ’84 Olympic Games to a committee of corporate businessmen. However wary they may have been towards the idea of privatization, the 1984 Olympics would go on to be remembered as one of the most successful Olympic Games in history. Not only did the Committee find itself under budget, it also managed to make a profit – something that had only happened once before.

Through private fundraising, corporate sponsorships, and fiscal discipline, the Committee pulled off the unthinkable. Instead of throwing away millions, if not billions, on building new infrastructure, LA84 made use of existing arenas and college sports facilities.

Unheard of at the time, the Committee made history by selling the exclusive broadcasting rights to just one network. The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) paid a modest $225 million to be America’s only source for viewing the Olympic Games.

When it came to housing the Olympians, LA84 chose to make use of college dormitories and other housing facilities spread throughout the city, rather than building a costly “Olympic Village,” which has become customary for host cities.

When all was said and done, the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games cost a total of $546 million dollars. When compared to the $50 billion spent on the 2013 Sochi Winter Games, the amount spent by LA84 seems almost minuscule.

Privatization was not only possible, it was also the most efficient way to get the job done.

Trump And Hayek: On The Same Page.

/in /by

“I am not a conservative.” We have not heard Donald Trump say those words, but many commentators have put them in his mouth by observation. For example The Federalist recently ran a story entitled Trump Is Not A Conservative – And That’s A Good Thing. And Pat Buchanan repeated the theme at lewrockwell.com.

Trump, says Frank Cannon in The Federalist, is “at war with the progressives who have co-opted American society”. Indeed, he is criticized by his detractors for his willingness to attack our nation’s institutions. Elite conservatives are offended, because their philosophy depends on maintaining unquestioning respect for these long-standing institutions and believing in them as a bedrock of our republic.

This conservative position is, in the word chosen by Mr. Cannon, naïve. (President Trump would probably coin a more vitriolic phrase.) The institutions of our republic have been undermined, corrupted and politicized in an unrelenting process of re-engineering that we call progressivism. Trump is therefore judged, logically, to be “anti-progressive”.

Anti-progressive is a great thing to be. Progressives have worked hard and worked systematically to subvert American institutions, and the shattered wrecks that are left deserve none of our respect. Institutions mediate between individuals and society – effectively today, between individuals and their government – with the role of reconciling divergent interests. What the progressives have done is to politicize our institutions so that they are rigged to favor specific special interests, i.e. corrupted them to the point of destruction. Progressives have politicized the family, religion, education, the economy and, worst of all, the justice system, from traffic court to the Supreme Court, and from local policing to the FBI.

Trump does not let himself be hampered by the Conservative rules about not criticizing institutions even after their progressive corruption is complete. This conservative tactic, says the Federalist, results in a perpetual state of losing. Instead, he calls out their illegitimacy, their capture by the forces of progressivism, and the distortion of their true purpose. Whether it’s the news media, the judicial system or the NFL, Trump is vocal and fearless in pointing to failures of trust and subversion of the republic.

Why Hayek Was Not A Conservative.

“I am not a conservative” are actual words of F.A. Hayek. A famous essay was extracted from his book The Constitution of Liberty and published under the title “Why I Am Not A Conservative”. The version that’s online at cato.org carries the author line: “By Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek”. Perhaps there is a worry that someone stumbling across this paper might think it’s by our current President.

Anti-progressive And Anti-conservative.

In the essay, Hayek describes progressive movements as encroachments on liberty, and conservatism as opposition to change. He is opposed to both. For Hayek, the big problem with Conservatism is that it has no objective – “it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving”. The best it can do is slow down undesirable developments, but it cannot prevent their continuance. Yes, it can defend long-established institutions, but since the progressives have more energy and more specific policies to “reconstruct all social institutions”, conservatism can not keep the tide of corruption and politicization at bay. In The Results Of Human Action But Not Of Human Design, Hayek points to one example of the damage that the subversion of institutions can do to civilization. Speaking of what progressives have done to the justice system, he says that they have “deprived law of all …connection with justice”.

Anti-intellectual.

Hayek does use the word “progressives” in identifying those he is accusing, but he also famously employed another epithet: intellectuals. In The Intellectuals And Socialism, he calls socialism a specific form of the destruction of traditional democratic institutions, and accuses intellectuals of directing their main effort towards this goal. They are people with an “absence of responsibility for practical affairs”, i.e. they know nothing of the real world. In fact, they disdain it. It’s deplorable. They are guided by abstract intellectual constructs – for example, material equality, which is a generalized concept free of any analytic evidence or particularity. It is to be achieved by design and by social engineering supported by legislation.

These intellectuals work very hard to recruit the right people to their ranks. They make sure that holding progressive views leads to high reputation and lucrative appointments. They expand the number of bureaucrats and functionaries at every opportunity.

Their goal is the entire reconstruction of society, and their views are a threat to civilization, says Hayek. Conservatives err when they try to maintain their own personal standing within the existing order without resisting this anti-civilizational crusade. Conservatives want to be “practical”, “sensible” and “realistic”. They are interested in the preservation of existing features of society even after are no longer defensible.

Trump, on the other hand, is a radical anti-progressive. He attacks the moral authority and legitimacy of co-opted institutions. Hayek would be by his side..

How Entrepreneurship Is Changing the Lives of Prison Inmates

/in /by

Can you imagine being eternally judged according to the worst thing you have ever done? As imperfect beings we have all committed regrettable acts and said things that were less than commendable. But for the vast majority of us, these bad choices have not prevented us from picking up the pieces and moving on with our lives.

But for the formerly incarcerated, the worst thing they have ever done haunts them long after they leave prison. Their past often prevents them from securing a job and housing, two essential elements needed to rebuild your life. And when you factor in the environmental circumstances that led to their bad decisions in the first place, you recognize that many of these former offenders have no support system there to guide them down a more virtuous path after they are released.

Without these necessities, recidivism is commonplace. This is why two-thirds of released inmates end up rearrested within three years of their release. This number increases to three-quarters within five years.

Something is seriously wrong when our “correctional system” consistently fails to do any correcting at all. And to be sure, the system has failed. Instead of giving inmates the direction they need to improve their lives and the communities they will eventually, hopefully, return to, we lock them in cages, treat them like animals, and then act shocked when they cannot function in the outside world and end up back in prison.

But where the state and the system it created has failed, the private sector has succeeded in lower recidivism through entrepreneurship.

Second Chances

“We’re all ex somethings,” the “about” section for Defy Ventures reads. The organization was started by Catherine Hoke and uses character development, entrepreneurship, and employment opportunities to change the lives of those currently behind bars.

It is all too easy to brush off the incarcerated population of this country as being “where they belong;” they are criminals after all. But the truth of the matter is we are all “criminals” in the eyes of the state. Most of us just never get caught.

Many Americans commit three felonies a day, whether knowingly or not. This is because our criminal codes have become so bloated and arbitrary it is hard to not break some sort of law. Couple this with the fact that the drug war routinely prosecutes victimless crimes and that many of these “perpetrators” have no history of violence, and you have a large chunk of the prison population that shouldn’t even be there to begin with.

But not all those behind bars are nonviolent offenders, and Defy works with these individuals as well. This is because above all things, Defy believes in second chances, even for violent offenders.

And for anyone thinking that this is far too altruistic a position to take, Hoke herself provides a powerful example. After her best friend was brutally murdered at twelve years old, she took a very harsh stance against the incarcerated population. But that was before she decided to visit a prison and see these inmates firsthand, an experience that was integral in her decision to start Defy.

To help get the point across that we are all guilty of something, the year-long program Defy runs an exercise called, “step to the line.” In this drill, Catherine or another Defy rep asks both its volunteers and their inmates questions like, “have you ever done something you could have been arrested for?” If the answer is yes, then participants must, “step to the line.” Without fail, Hoke says the majority, if not all, of those participating step forward.

She then asks questions like, “who has ever committed a violent crime?” Not who has ever been convicted, but who has ever committed a violent crime. Even those with squeaky clean criminal records have been in a schoolyard brawl before, which means many undoubtedly step to the line.

Where the exercise gets interesting is when Hoke asks those to step forward who were arrested before the age of 16, 13, and then ten. Hoke describes an instance where one inmate was first arrested and put into the system at seven.

This exercise is as much for Defy’s volunteers as it is for the participants. It is easier to judge others than it is to consider their individual circumstances. One of the participants of Defy, for example, watched his grandfather murder his father at a young age, something most of us could not even imagine witnessing. This led him down a destructive path, for which he is now serving time.

As the Defy website reads:

“I wish we’d ask ourselves, ‘What would it be like if I was only known for the worst thing I’ve done?’ Moved by empathy, we’d recognize people for who they are today and not for the mistakes they made yesterday. Millions with criminal histories would unlock their potential.”

You will never hear Catherine Hoke refer to the individuals she works with as felons or even inmates. Hoke chooses to view those she works with as what they could be, not what their past has defined for them. In the Defy program, inmates are called EITs, which stands for entrepreneurs in training.

For many, if not most of these inmates, they have lived their whole lives being told they will never amount to anything. Born into circumstances where they stood almost zero chance of getting out of high-risk neighborhoods, many of those behind bars were forced to become entrepreneurs.

Natural-Born Entrepreneurs

For those growing up in high-risk neighborhoods, survival is key. Learning how to make money at a young age is sometimes the only means by which many of these individuals can eat. And as tragic as this is, it is for this reason that entrepreneurship resonates with these inmates.

Speaking to Tim Ferriss during an episode of his podcast, Hoke explains that for many of these EITs, making money was a matter of staying alive more than anything at else. But what started with something as innocent as selling gumballs to classmates quickly turned into selling drugs, as it was a more lucrative trade.

But simply commenting that these individuals should have done something nobler with their lives negates the series of circumstances that led them there in the first place, as the step to the line exercise demonstrated.

The Program

Defy is a year-long program that features 100 business courses developed by those from both the Harvard and Stanford MBA programs. The program itself is vetted by Baylor University and once completed, EITs receive a Baylor certification.

As Hoke explains, “We use our love of the entrepreneurial journey to bring out the best in people.” By instilling healthy competition, EITs learn the ins and outs of the business world, even presenting business plans to a panel of judges near the end of the program. But the training does not end there.”

Character development is a huge part of the program, so Defy also places a great deal of emphasis on psychological development. Each EIT undergoes intense therapy in addition to their business training.

Since these EITs will be returning to the outside world eventually, Hoke wants to ensure that those reentering society are the kinds of neighbors you would want to live next to. Character development and therapy play a huge role in this.

And for anyone thinking this sounds nice in theory, but seems almost impossible in practice, the results speak for themselves.

Con Body

Coss Marte became a local drug kingpin at a young age. Before he was arrested and sent to prison, he was bringing in over $2 million in drug sales a year. A natural-born entrepreneur, Marte just needed to redirect these skills. Luckily Defy helped him to do just that.

After being placed in solitary confinement, Marte refused to let that horrific experience destroy him. He spent his days developing workouts he could do in his small cell without the use of weights or other gym equipment. In the end, Marte lost over 70 lbs.

When he left solitary confinement, he taught others his workout routine. When Marte started the Defy program, he knew exactly what his business plan would be.

After being released, Marte went back to his old stomping grounds in New York City and began “Con Body.” Hiring other former convicts, Marte and his trainers use their rough prison style methods to train their clients. Once you sign up for a session, you are partnered with your “celly,” also known as your trainer and undergo your prison-style training.

This idea caught on quickly and the business has been a huge success. In fact, Con Body now has a location within the swanky Saks Fifth Avenue, bringing in many high-caliber clients eager to pay for Marte’s services.

But his company is not only helping clients stay fit, it is giving other inmates hope. After hearing his story, one of America’s harshest prisons, Pelican Bay, allowed Marte to come in and teach a class to its inmates in solitary confinement.

For those who have spent their time alone in small cells, this has made a huge impact. Not only did they get an afternoon of human contact, they now had something to pass the time while they served out their solitary confinement sentences.

Marte’s story is just one of many, but it offers a great deal of insight into why the prison system routinely fails. Since so many inmates have this entrepreneurial drive, it seems a shame that so much talent would go to waste.

Hoke’s goal is to someday be in every major prison system within the United States. And while that goal is still years away from coming to fruition, the impact Hoke is having is undeniable.

The Greatest Showman and the Beauty of the Entrepreneurial Spirit

/in /by

I love stories about underdogs defying all odds and proving they are stronger than people realized. This helps explain my unbridled enthusiasm for the new movie musical The Greatest Showman.

But there is so much more to this film than the baseline plot: a story of society’s outcasts finding success through unconventional means. Above all, The Greatest Showman is a tribute to the resilience and power of the entrepreneurial spirit.

The film tells the story of P.T. Barnum, the man responsible for the founding of the Ringling Brothers Circus. I don’t know much about the real-life P.T. Barnum, but the character in the film, as depicted by Hugh Jackman, is the hero I wish to discuss.

You’re More Than You Can Ever Be

Born into nothing, Barnum is a lowly servant with big dreams working in a wealthy household. Without a family or support system, he is forced to learn how to rely on himself from a very young age. And no matter how cruel the rest of the world treats him, he is unfazed by the opinions and actions of others.

After getting in trouble for teasing his employer’s daughter, Barnum is struck hard in the face. But this does not lessen his resolve for greatness. Surrounded by luxuries far beyond his own means, Barnum gets a glimpse of the life he could live if he were to rise above his circumstances. So he commits himself to achieving something amazing and larger than himself.

In the song, “A Million Dreams,” young Barnum demonstrates his unbreakable optimism when he sings:

‘Cause every night I lie in bed

The brightest colors fill my head

A million dreams are keeping me awake

I think of what the world could be

A vision of the one I see

A million dreams is all it’s gonna take

A million dreams for the world we’re gonna make

But instead of merely obsessing over daydreams, Barnum made his dream a reality. He grew up, married the same girl he was beaten for teasing years earlier, and works a series of mundane factory jobs. When he gets laid off, again, he decides that enough is enough and searches for his true calling in life. As all entrepreneurs understand, setting off on your own comes with a fair set of risks, and Barnum faces plenty. But, from high risks often come high rewards.

Using all the money he has, he purchases a building and turns it into “Barnum’s American Museum.” Unfortunately, this venture is a dud. The only tickets he sells are to his wife and two daughters. So, like a good entrepreneur, Barnum goes back to the drawing board to figure out what the people actually want.  

What is most admirable about this part of Barnum’s life is his unwavering dedication to hard work. Stories about lackadaisical dreamers often place too much emphasis on the dreams themselves, and not what it takes to make those dreams become a reality.

In the song, “Come Alive,” Barnum is seen working diligently to manifest his dreams in reality and reflecting on the fact that through this hard work, his dreams can unfold. He sings, “And the world becomes a fantasy, and you’re more than you can ever be, ‘cause you’re dreaming with your eyes wide open.”

The Market Is the Great Equalizer

Barnum longs to give the world something extraordinary, the likes of which they have never seen. But he realizes he cannot do this by merely imitating what has already been done. He decides to do something bolder, and by doing so, he ends up adding value to the world in ways he never imagined.

The market is the great equalizer, as this film drives home. Barnum’s original museum highlighted the spectacular and unbelievable marvels of the world. Unfortunately, none of these rarities were real. His original museum relied on poor quality replicas of mermaids and other mythical phenomena, which were not appealing to consumers. But the lack of customers drives Barnum to go in search of real, and rare, human acts.

Lettie Lutz, later known as “the bearded lady,” is resigned to a life of shame and isolation. She has no aspirations aside from keeping her head down while doing laundry for a living. But that was before she met Barnum.

After putting up signs looking for rare and exotic acts for his upcoming production, Barnum stumbles upon Lettie and is taken aback by her stellar vocal abilities. He begs her to join his act as a singer.

Barnum’s enthusiasm for his project is contagious, and Lutz agrees to come aboard. His excitement from finding Lutz redoubles his resolve to put together the greatest show on earth.  

Barnum goes around collecting other so-called “circus freaks,” ranging from the incredibly tall to the incredibly tattooed and even a death-defying trapeze act. Barnum’s gang of outcasts set out not only to prove they deserve to be a part of society but that they have value to add to the world through entertainment. And this is when Barnum’s production really begins to take off.

As Barnum predicted, audiences were both shocked and thrilled to see such unique individuals brazenly performing. In 1850, when the film is set, being different was no cause for celebration. If you did not fit into society’s prescribed boxes, you didn’t belong. It was as simple as that. But by offering something consumers craved, these unconventional performers took their supposed “flaws” and turned them into a sought-after market entity.

Not only did this allow a ragtag gang of performers to earn livings far beyond what they originally thought possible, they also became a family and found inner peace and acceptance.

While many of these performers were chastised for being different, even by their own families, Barnum gave them a sense of belonging and a camaraderie they had been searching for their whole lives. In the song, “This is Me,” Lutz belts out a ballad of acceptance, proclaiming that she is okay with who she is, despite what people may say. She has created value and through that has gained a new sense of self-worth.

When the sharpest words wanna cut me down

I’m gonna send a flood, gonna drown them out

I am brave, I am bruised

I am who I’m meant to be, this is me

Look out ’cause here I come

And I’m marching on to the beat I drum

I’m not scared to be seen

I make no apologies, this is me.

Film critics have been quick to condemn this aspect of the film as “exploitation,” since Barnum earned a profit off of his rare performers. But each member of Barnum’s circus was there because he or she wanted to be. Voluntary association is not exploitation, especially when the performers themselves were able to improve their standard of living and their own emotional well being.

Reframing the Narrative

In the AMC series, Mad Men, the main character and ad man extraordinaire Don Draper famously says, “If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation.” Barnum puts this kind of advice into action.

A highbrow, snooty, and prominent theater critic attends one of Barnum’s performances and writes a particularly nasty review. He even goes as far as to dub Barnum’s act a “circus”–which, at the time meant “a public scene of frenetic and noisily intrusive activity,” hardly a compliment and according to the critic, unworthy of high-class audiences. But this didn’t discourage Barnum.

Instead, he changes the name of his show, “P. T. Barnum’s Grand Traveling Museum, Menagerie, Caravan & Hippodrome” to include the word “circus,” establishing a new definition for the word. By not only refusing to be offended but also going so far as to adopt the offensive name for his show, he is able to reclaim the narrative and continue proving that he is more than what others may think.

Yet he doesn’t stop there.

He then decides to add some credibility to his act. After hearing of Jenny Lind, a woman dubbed, “the greatest singer in all of Europe,” Barnum offers her an exorbitant amount of money to join his act.

While his performers are talented, none are classically trained, nor are they known among high-class circles in Europe. When Jenny takes center stage and blows the audience away, Barnum proves that his “circus” is anything but: a fact the theater critic later admits.

But he soon confronts a crisis. A mob of citizens angry that such unconventional performers were being allowed on stage set fire to his building, turning his dreams into ashes.

After a brief period of doubt and desolation, Barnum snaps back into entrepreneur mode and finds a way to continue his show. Since he cannot afford to rebuild or purchase a new facility, Barnum has the genius idea to save on overhead costs by using large tents instead: the same tents that are now so closely associated with circuses. Little did we know as children that these tents first emerged as an entrepreneurial response to tragedy.

But the entrepreneurial spirit is one of dedication and resilience. And through all of the disappointment and struggles, Barnum was able to leave a legacy behind not only for himself, but for each performer who found personal liberation through his show. He was also able to provide for his family and give them the life he dreamed of as a young boy.

While this movie has been unjustly panned by many critics, it is resonating with entrepreneurs and reminding them to hold fast and work hard to make their dreams a reality.

Who Trump Forgot to Include in His Support of Right to Try Laws

/in /by

Trump was praised for his supportive mention of right to try laws in his State of the Union Address. To be sure, this is surprising, especially coming from a “conservative” president. However, we should look closer at his entire speech and its impact on all those who deserve the right to try.

The Right to Try Belongs to Everyone

Addressing right to try laws, Trump said:

We also believe that patients with terminal conditions, terminal illness, should have access to experimental treatment immediately that could potentially save their lives. People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure. I want to give them a chance right here at home. It’s time for Congress to give these wonderful, incredible Americans the right to try.”

And the president is absolutely correct. Terminally ill patients should have the right to try experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives. But this right does not belong to them alone.

Mental illness inflicts tremendous suffering on its victims. However, it is not medically classified as being terminal. Yet, it is often deadly. Yet, these patients are not given the right to try, even under Trump’s proposed policies. For those suffering from severe depression or PTSD, suicide is often just one dark thought away. But these souls are told they must suffer lest they be thrown in jail for using something as “evil” as marijuana or psychedelics, both illegal in the eyes of the state.

Since several FDA-approved medications for anxiety and depression are available, mental ailments are seen as “treatable.” But as anyone who has ever seen a commercial for such medications has witnessed, “increased suicidal thoughts” are often a side effect of these types of drugs. And this doesn’t account for the other side effects that vastly decrease one’s quality of life such as increased weight gain, decreased sex drive, and often even a changing of taste for certain foods. Sure, these are not life-threatening ailments, but quality of life is important especially when experiencing an increase in suicidal thoughts.

But these considerations are made far worse when looking at some of the other comments made by Trump during the State of the Union.

The Emotional Costs of War

Trump spoke of building an even mightier military, saying:

In confronting these horrible dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict and unmatched power is the surest means to our true and great defense. For this reason, I am asking Congress to end the dangerous defense sequester and fully fund our great military.

This policy will not make us any safer. The “fully-funded” wars being waged around the world are only breeding blowback that makes the world a more dangerous place. And the Pentagon is already filled with bloated and wasteful spending. There is absolutely no need to further feed the beast.

And in addition to the financial cost of war, Trump fails to acknowledge the emotional cost of promoting a military agenda that would mean sending more individuals off to fight in distant lands, causing even more cases of PTSD.

Since 2009, more veterans have committed suicide than soldiers have died in combat. A primary culprit of this is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD has been called many things over, such as “shell shock,” “battle fatigue,” and even “war neurosis.”And because it has taken many forms as more information has been discovered, no one really knows how many veterans are suffering from it. It has, however, been estimated that between 11–20 out of every 100 veterans are suffering.

But these troubled souls are unable to get access to treatment that could potentially save their lives. Instead, those most in need of help are ushered through the disastrous Veterans Administration, where the only solution is to prescribe a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs. In the beginning, it may start with just an antidepressant, but when the side-effects of that drug manifest themselves, another drug is given to correct the side-effects. And when the new drug brings on its own set of side-effects, an additional drug is added on. And so on and so forth. Iraq War veteran Nigel McCourry is one such veteran who was subjected to this regiment of prescription drugs and in the book “Changing Our Minds” stated: “It was like they were trying to give me a chemical lobotomy, it was not an acceptable alternative to just dealing with the PTSD.”

But dealing with PTSD is not as easy as it sounds. Anyone who has ever dealt with or knows someone who has dealt with PTSD knows it is not as simple as getting your feelings out. Sometimes just talking about experiences endured in war can trigger a patient and bring them to a state of such discomfort they can become a danger to themselves or others, sometimes even ending in suicide. And yet, PTSD — remember — is not technically a terminal illness.

But fortunately for McCourry, he was able to participate in a clinical study that allowed him the legal right to try psychedelic treatment, which completely changed his life for the better.

Psychedelics and Psychotherapy: One Veteran’s Story

After years of being demonized thanks to the War on Drugs, psychedelics are making a comeback. And unfortunately, the reason for this comeback is perpetual war.

After two Iraq wars and the Afghanistan War, America saw tremendous surges in PTSD cases. Between the years of 1999 and 2010, veteran suicides averaged 22 a day, or one every 65 minutes. That number has since decreased to about 20 suicides a day, which is hardly a level worth celebrating.

But these grim statistics forced the government to recognize the moral injuries inflicted by sending young men and women off to both commit, witness, and be on the receiving end of heinous acts of violence. As psychologist Jordan B. Peterson has written:

“Soldiers who develop post-traumatic stress disorder frequently develop it not because of something they saw, but because of something they did.”

In the last several years, the government has grown more open to letting psychedelic researchers, such as the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), begin clinical trials on testing psychedelic drugs as a means to treat PTSD. The substance Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has been the most commonly tested member of the psychedelic family lately, as its use has helped many PTSD sufferers talk and work through their trauma without the bombardment of triggers.

Known to most as molly or ecstasy, this currently banned substance brought McCourry peace after nearly a decade of struggling with PTSD.

To be sure, McCourry did not encounter this drug at a rave or Burning Man. He was given MDMA in a controlled environment under the supervision of psychologists who also served as “guides,” leading him through the process of self-discovery. The MDMA used in this study were not bought off a dealer in some sketchy, dark alley either. MAPS was given state permission to have a chemist concoct the medication that was to be administered to McCourry. And it had life-changing consequences.

PTSD is, in itself, a survival mechanism. When you live in a state of constant instability, whether in war or growing up in a tumultuous home environment, PTSD keeps you on your guard. It is your body functioning in survival mode all of the time. But when you come home from war or are removed from the situation causing you distress, your psyche does not understand that it is safe from impending doom. The sufferer is unable to live in the present because they are consumed with living in their past trauma.

But MDMA allows the user to experience the here and now in ways they have not previously been able to. This allows them to break down their mental barriers and talk about past trauma without feeling as though they are facing impending doom or judgment for past acts. This is precisely what allowed McCourry to work through his trauma and truly heal.

Through his few sessions taking MDMA, McCourry was able to talk about things he had never discussed outside of combat. MDMA allowed him to dig into his experiences without plunging him into a seemingly perpetual darkness.

Speaking of his experience, McCourry said, “I don’t feel cured of PTSD. But now I can manage my symptoms in a whole lot better way.” And unlike antidepressants and antipsychotics, he does not have to take MDMA every day. He only needed a handful of sessions to make breakthrough discoveries.  

While the FDA has “fast-tracked” MDMA for prescription use, it is still at least five years away from hitting the market. For many PTSD sufferers, five years is a death sentence. But again, this plight is not considered “terminal” by the administration, or any administration in the past for that matter.

Under Trump’s right to try policies, this type of peace of mind that McCourry gained would not be granted to veterans, who went off to fight the wars he and other foreign leaders have started and perpetuated.

While sending human beings off to war is often a death sentence on its own, once they return — if they are so lucky — we sentence them to the confines of their minds where they must live in agony as they attempt to deal with the things they have seen and the things they have done. The terminally ill absolutely deserve the right to try, but so do those suffering from mental ailments where suicide is an outcome that is not unfathomable, or even unexpected.

If Trump wants to amp up America’s military might, he’d better think twice about the mental toll it will take on the those being asked to carry out his agenda.

To be sure, the right of terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs is absolutely wonderful and should be celebrated to the utmost degree. But unfortunately under Trump’s vision, tyrannical foreign policy will continue, the drug war will continue, and those plagued by trauma run the risk of taking their own lives before the state allows them access to potentially lifesaving treatments.

Write for CFI