LIBERTARIAN TIMES – ISSUE #7, MAY 22, 2009
Editorial
Today we will look at the answers that several of you (my usual thanks!) provided to the questions I posed in the last issue:
“What are the advantages to dealing with other Libertarians as opposed to the general population?”
None of you disagreed explicitly with my proposition that we have an historic opportunity to collaborate in economic ventures as Libertarians for the benefit of ourselves as well as the “cause”; on the other hand the feedback to this question demonstrated that we have a long way to go before such collaboration is readily accepted.
All those that responded to this question pointed out the “pitfalls” of dealing with other Libertarians. Many of you had personal experiences or knew of other Libertarians who had personal experiences that were quite negative and, in some cases, disastrous. Based on these experiences, one could draw the conclusion that many Libertarians out there are unreliable, take advantage of the trust of other Libertarians, and have assumed the Libertarian tag only because they disagree with a particular law or government policy.
This is in stark contrast to the experience of Doug Casey at La Estancia de Cafayate, which you may recall from a previous LT issue. The elite group of some 100 people with strong Libertarian leanings who have chosen to create a community in northern Argentina seem to be working well together, deriving economic gain and enjoyment of life, as well as spreading the message of freedom on a global scale.
It is a fact that there are people who call themselves Libertarian only because they have a “beef” or even a fundamental disagreement with a single issue, be it a law or policy (e.g. drugs, abortion, taxation, gun control, licenses, etc.). My own experience confirms this too, as do many of yours. These people do not embrace the philosophy in its totality but pick and choose specific issues and harp on them (quite emotionally sometimes) to the exclusion of other issues and principles. Religions sometimes have this problem too, for instance on the meaning and application of “jihad” in Islam.
What we need, and what I’m looking for, are Libertarians with a good understanding of the philosophy of Liberty (including the responsibility and accountability parts), a practical and reasonably consistent application of the philosophy in daily life (this can be quite difficult at times), and individuals with a high degree of integrity or “character”. I also know from personal experience that such people still exist and while they don’t have to be “perfect” (none are) they do exhibit the virtues of intelligence, maturity, balance, and self-discipline. These are the kind of Libertarians I want to collaborate with.
Collaboration
I have used the words “collaborate” and “collaboration” quite frequently throughout the issues of Libertarian Times. This is deliberate and I want to briefly elaborate why I put such emphasis on this concept.
To me, collaboration is the latest “fad” in management practice.
Over the past 30 years or so, those old enough to remember have seen an evolution of management concepts starting in the 80’s with Total Quality Management (TQM) and the widespread adoption of ISO 9000-series quality standards. This was followed in the 90’s by Business Process Reengineering (BPR) or just Reengineering, a complete redesign of the way we did work in order to achieve sometimes dramatic performance improvements and often driven by new technologies, such as the Internet.
At the beginning of this Century, Knowledge Management (KM) became the focus of management science and practice, the attempt to collect knowledge residing in documents and people’s heads and storing it on a technology platform that enables other people to access and apply this knowledge (e.g. expert systems, artificial intelligence, helpdesk systems and in its simplest form: FAQ’s).
While there are still a number of obstacles to overcome and we still have a long way to go to fully realize the benefits of Knowledge Management, we are already getting a glimpse of the “next big thing” in management science and that is Complexity Management. This is still in its infancy but will be the major management application of the future. Whereas Knowledge Management is focused on “objects” (e.g. subject matter expertise), Complexity Management is focused on the links between objects, how they relate to each other and how they influence each other. The link itself becomes more important than the objects and this study will help us to explain and hopefully prevent the often negative “unintended consequences” of many of our actions and activities, while enabling positive consequences to happen in complex systems. The new maxim will be: “I link, therefore I am!”
The relentless and accelerating march toward complexity, driven mostly by new technologies (bio- and nano-tech) as well as the convergence of multiple science streams and disciplines that are starting to happen, will pose a great challenge for the future as our current ways of dealing with complexity (simplification, reductionism and specialization) will no longer be sufficient. Speed is a major factor in increasing complexity as change keeps happening faster and faster.
In between Knowledge and Complexity Management, I see “Collaboration” as an interim technique for handling increasingly complex problems until such time as Complexity Management has evolved into a full-blown science and practice of its own.
One of the reasons, I believe, why the current financial crisis happened so suddenly, with our so-called experts assuring us just weeks before that all was well, is that the complexity of our financial systems and the products that were invented (collateralized mortgage obligations, credit default swaps, repackaged asset vehicles, etc.) became so great that the consequences were no longer “visible” until it was too late. We now know that most of the buyers of these invented securities did not even understand what they were buying and thus became the victims when the whole house of cards collapsed.
We may all dream of “going back” to simpler days, the “good old days” perhaps, when life is simple and straight-forward. However, I firmly believe that this will not be the case and that life will become more and more complex, faster and faster. It is possible, of course (and it has been pointed out in recent literature with historical examples) that any society that becomes too complex will eventually destroy itself. Too complex, in this context, refers to the inability of the society to manage the complexity.
The search for tools, technology and techniques to manage complexity will therefore continue. Right now the time has come for “Collaboration”, the combined effort of a group of individuals with their own skills, talents, imagination, creativity, experience and knowledge working together on finding a solution to a defined problem or on finding the best way to achieve an agreed objective. A solution has to be found in a timely manner as the accelerating speed of change has a major impact on the problem and may make the solution obsolete before it is implemented.
The difference between collaboration and teamwork is that collaboration is a peer effort, where each member can contribute insight on any aspect of the problem or objective and not be limited by or to their specialization, as so often happens in teamwork. The composition of a collaboration team, the way the team gets rewarded when successful, the way individual contributions get measured and recorded, and the technology that is applied by the members all play an important role, much more so than in traditional teamwork. Also, collaboration lends itself better to situations where mindset change is required, as peers continuously question assumptions and conventional wisdom.
Geography plays a lesser role as the technology is designed to remove or minimize geographical as well as time zone limits.
I hope this gives you a better idea of what I mean when I use the words “Libertarian collaboration”. It means agreed objectives, individuals with certain skills, experience, knowledge, and chemistry (personality), dedication and commitment and (in our case) a common philosophical belief system, working together to achieve the objectives: furthering the cause of Liberty, making money and enjoying life!
Over the past few weeks, a small group of Libertarians from the LT readership has emerged with a greater than passing interest in this concept and I am greatly encouraged, notwithstanding the “perils” mentioned at the beginning of today’s issue. I have always believed that the Libertarian community consists of outstanding individuals that, if “collaborating”, can achieve far greater objectives as a group than they could individually.
I look forward to the first “Collaboration Project”!
The second question that was asked in last week’s issue: “What’s so great about Freedom anyway?” attracted far fewer responses than the first one above. I will therefore give you another chance to contribute your answers in this coming week. Deep down we all know the answer to this question already but it won’t hurt to put it into print and get it out in the open. I am sure it will be information we can put to good use in the near future!
Cheers!
Andy
Silver and gold rise as debuching of currency begins to take effect
Posts
Andrew Lo, JP Morgan, and PBR Audits
1 hour ago