Individualism, Creativity, and Innovation

Individualism, Creativity, and Innovation
by Alex Merced

Premise 1: That creativity comes from tapping into your inner child

 Kids say the darndest things don't they? It's this innocent nature that we admire in kids, when they are young before society begins socializing, limits, values, artificial barriers in their minds. Even then, during their adolescents they typically rebel against many of these constructs until one day the fight becomes to much and "they grow up". It's when one loses the ability to think beyond the barriers given to you that creativity dissapears and only your ability to see what is seeable is there, and you lose the ability to see what is not there.

Think of all the people you consider creative, arn't they generally playful and childlike and then think of all the frumpy people you consider an "adult" and put their creativity into perspective. So in economics the idea of seeing the unseen is called "opportunity cost", the unseen costs of every action you take. To be able to appreciate opportunity cost you must have this childlike nature to see beyond the barriers given by society, you must be creative.

This is why I feel I see such a stark difference from when I see Austrian economist who are generally very light-hearted and humorous versus Keynesians who are usually more cynical and serious. Yet, it's the Austrians who are more equipped to see the unseen opportunity costs, and realize what could have been to look to the future to see what could be. Keyensians, on the other hand focus on only known results to draw conclusions, and only draw self-destructing solutions based on actions that have "visible" results even if the results don't accomplish anything.
(For example, deficit spending has the visible result of increasing GDP but it doesn't fundamentally fix the real, unseen problem of diverting capital).

Another place I noticed this was on a recent interview with Ron Paul on Hardball where the serious and cynical Chris Matthew interviews the optimistic and light-hearted Ron Paul and discusses how Paul remind Matthews of his childhood hero, Barry Goldwater, but then he grew up. This was a sad and depressing statement that shows that at some point he gave in to the barriers that society imposes and became an "adult", while Ron Paul was able to this day in his 70's retain that childlike innocense that allows children to see things for what they are not how society wants them to be.

Do an experiment, give the facts to a child on a issue, and ask for their response.







Premise # 2: Collectivism kills Creativity, while Individualism births it

Creativity must come from an individual with little barriers of the mind as possible, although to think in groups and collectives as done in a collectivist framework would mean imposing more barriers in order define yourself into this "Collective". To see why this would be the case watch this video on the difference between Individualism and Collectivism:









Premise # 3: Innovation comes from Creativity

Innovation results from finding news way to do the same things, which will results in needing less time and resources to survive and spend more time on leisure and personal interests which is a true increase in the standard of life which can be numerically measured. Although innovation requires two things:

1) Investment: These Innovations require capital to develop and distribute, without investment there is no way to develop the most useful innovations.

2) Creativity: You can have all the capital for investment but if there is no ideas to invest in, it's useless, so you need creative people to see the unknown whcih can be developed.

So creativity is pivotal in the process of Innovation, so creating a individualist framework for inviduals to grow up with actually would increase the rate of Innovation and increase the quality of life of these individuals who use these innovations.


Premise # 4: Government Destroys Innovation

Government with it's coercive monopoly on violence accomplishes two things that destroy innovation:

1) They destroy investment through taxation and borrowing which puts incredible constraints on the available investment capital.

2) They destroy creativity by imposing values of the ruling class on society, and creating standards that only impose even more barriers of the mind.

Without creativity and invesment, innovation can occur and this only hurts individuals in their pursuit to impove their individual lives.

How Laws + Taxes Divert Resources and Lowers Quality of Life

How Laws + Taxes Divert Resources and Lowers Quality of Life
by Alex Merced


Everyone thinks there needs to be more laws for this and that to basically prevent or control everything they don't like without realizing the consequences of laws, and if they need money to enforce this law they'll create a tax. The problem is that to keep this legal and tax institution manageable it needs an army of lawyers and accountants which require money, money that could of been used elsewhere to develop new consumer technology or medical innovations.

The only benefit you get from an army of lawyers and accountants is preventing being hassled by the federal government, this does not free up my day for more leisure time or make me healthier which would improve my quality of life. Actually it lowers my quality of life due to the leisure time lost having to keep track of receipts and documentation so that way the slightest mistake doesn't result in financial ruin in the courts, and I can't imagine the stress and paranoia of a more and more complex legal/tax system can result in a longer life span.

Some might respond saying that this is good, only with laws can we maintain some sort of preferred social order (which everyone has a different definition of) and we need taxes to enforce those laws. On top of creating this "ideal" social order it creates highly paid lawyer and accounting jobs.

These people assume that if the government didn't spend the taxed portion of peoples incomes they wouldn't of spent it, and I can tell your personally that is not the case. Where I would of spent that money is another sector of the economy that would of seen growth in activity and jobs if I had the money to spend there which probably would have been something that added value to my life and subjectively see it.

A concept that has left modern day is that of opportunity cost, the thought of what "could of been" if an action had not been taken. If I had not spent my extra income supposedly, then I probably would of saved it but then the bank will spend it by loaning it out to home owners and entrepreneurs who may develop a good or service I may value enough to withdraw that savings and buy later.

The bottom line is that resources are limited, and if more and more resources must be spent to keep up with a tax and legal system of growing complexity then that's less resources for something else and that is not optimal.