The starting line/finish line metaphor is not perfect, but no metaphor is. It does show Friedman's gift for synthesizing big concepts. Precious few people in the liberty movement know how to use the kinds of crystallizing metaphors Milton Friedman did. So the next time you hear someone talk about income inequality, remember the finish line analogy. It helps us unpack the idea that, instead of fretting about who has what, we can ask ourselves how we can better help any given person find the opportunity to be upwardly mobile and to find happiness.
But is it "equality of opportunity" what we're looking for (if we're not looking for equality of outcome)?
If you aren't moved by this video, check your pulse. This is the stuff community is made of. That we're living in an age in which millions of us can appreciate it? Well, it's just staggering.
But what I want to point out about this beautiful piece -- and the people who came together to make it -- is that it's completely bottom up. That is the nature of community and of entrepreneurship--especially in the 21st century.
(Hat tip to a reader, Rafael.) There are a number of religious celebrations going on right now. As you consider the situation in your family or community -- and how best to help the poor -- watch this video and ask yourself: what percentage of Americans have been paid and trained by the state to think like these men?
Is the purpose of a business to maximize shareholder value? Yes and no. Obviously profit is one side of the coin. But as John Mackey of Whole Foods reminds us, purpose is the other. Both having and expressing that deeper purpose makes for a more holistic understanding of an organization and it's surrounding ecosystem. Ironically, that makes companies more profitable.
Entrepreneurs who understand both sides of the capitalist coin will create long term value and make the world a better place. But some people think that John Mackey's "conscious capitalism" is too squishy -- that it's really just good branding.
Noam Chomsky embodies the problem with progressivism: He confuses the symptoms of state power with the disease. Government power is the problem, after all, because there is no such thing as corporate power without state power. Without the state's favor, you have to be responsible to an army of customers. With a large, powerful state, it's always possible to buy favors. That's a tough thing to swallow if you're worldview is pegged to loathing corporations. But Chomsky has built his own intellectual empire on a notion that gets the causal story precisely backwards.
There were few posts last week because your humble editor was at the mother ship talking with his colleagues about management philosophies. I think it was a fruitful discussion. And one of the management philosophies we discussed comes from the Self-Management Institute. Self-management is a radical departure from most command-and-control styles. Above is the Institutes's founder and resident guru, Chris Rufer.
I came across this great little presentation on Google+ The speaker, Lanny Goodman, discusses the basic idea of self-management, which has become more than a trend due to some proven successes.
But editor, you may be wondering, why do you sometimes put up these videos on organization theory?
What can non-profit organizations learn from John Hagel above?
First, we might share Hagel's skepticism about networking technologies breaking up big companies. Dinosaur companies may pass away, but new behemoths are likely to emerge. Indeed, the constructal law says we're likely to see "few large, many small" in any organizational landscape. Technology may help to change the topography of this landscape, but it will still have its behemoths.
If you're a faithful reader, you'll be familiar with our discussion of Paul Romer's charter cities -- as well as Romer's TED talk, which boils the idea down to its essence. Otherwise, check out the video above... Okay, good. So if you've watched the video or read our blog for a while, you've heard about the idea of charter cities by now. But is it going to happen?
A History of Libertarian Countries at Sea from Jason Sussberg is a brief profile of failed attempts to settle the sea. So the question that remains is: why do seasteaders think things will work now? Here are a few suggestions:
First, consider what Patri Friedman says at the end of the video. "You have to break things down into small steps." Incrementalism is preferable to utopianism in almost all respects. As any good Hayekian or former Soviet apparatchik will tell you, grand plans almost always fail.
