> Simon, your sentence "The four fundamental forces in the unorganized world
> allow individuals to avoid coercion and dependence." struck me as a
> profound statement. Consequently I have browsed through
> <http://www.unorg.com/socpol.htm> to find an elucidation on it. I probably
> have read too carelessly because I could not find any explanation on these
> "four" forces. Would you please care to explain these "four" forces?
At, "unorganization: the social and political consequences" at
http://www.unorg.com/socpol.htm started my thoughts on democracy,
governmente, education etc. and it was "trans: shaping interactions in the
unorganized world" that carried them on and also tried to put in place an
objective underlying theory to justify and better explain these opinions.
The four fundamental forces in the unorganized world are (1) increased
bounded rationality (limited understanding and control of the diverse,
complex world by managers and politicians) that can be avoided because of
the (2) realization of the voluntary exchange principle that no-one need
do anything they do not want to, whilst (3) reduced transaction costs
(busyness: the costs of getting in a position to transact that are not the
costs of actually transacting: the business) facilitate collapsible
corporations which can profitably enter and exit (4) increasingly
contestable markets (markets that are easily entered by new entrants such
as collapsible corporations despite the presence and power of incumbent
suppliers who are slow to react becuase they have not downstructured).
This is the economic framework that underpins the unorganized global
economy. It is also the reason why interventions from institutions that
dominated the old orderly organized world are being replaced by
interactiosn between individuals in the unorganized world.
> I would rather say two big threats. For me a much bigger threat to
> indiviual liberty is the ignorance of the very individuals concerned.
> That is why I can completely identify myself with John Constantine's
> statement that democracy has to develop into the ultimate learning
> organisation.
I agree: we need a democracy so widely distributed that no-one individual
can seize that democracy and no individual need suffer the consequences of
decisions made by other individuals: I should not have to suffer from
other voter's ignorance and their voting in Hilter, Blair, etc. This is
one of the reasons why representative democracy is imperfect democracy: it
does not give everyone what thay want, and increasingly these days it
gives no-one what they want because bounded rationality means that
government policies interventions help thsoe who do need need helping and
fail to help those who need helping.
> Simon, I disagree with your claim on history. History is not outdated. It
> is our most valuable asset in the construction and evaluation of our
> system thinking. One reason is its incredible richness in data, provided
> we have an accurate and comprehensive documentation on history. Another
> reason is that we can only create into the future so that we cannot
> influence history and thus upset the lives of people and nature with the
> testing of our theories.
I would disagree with you here At. I detest history- it goes back to the
earlier thread on "experience" that I think is overrated. The fact is that
the future is not what it used to be, and if we use the past to frame our
current and future decisions, we will simply be evolving: perpetuating
past mental models and received wisdom into an inherently and
fundamentally different future. This does persnet a giant opportyunity for
those who can achieve suspended animiation and banish all their
assumptions. Preconceptions are misconceptions! Its only the "Buts!" that
keep us on our butts. And those "Buts!" are usually based on historical
arguments.
I think the four forces show that the future is not the past- those people
who survive are those who remain their ideas in an evolutionary model,
those who thrive in business at least are those who disregard the old
model and innovate, i.e. create entirely new NEVER done before futures.
History cannot help much with the later.
Inability to forget the past is a great challenge. We see the inability of
intervening people today to learn the lessons of yesterday, we get our
single european currency just a few years after the european exchange rate
mechanism hemhorraged and we persist with outmoded forms of political and
business organization. All these wars over physical property... land, when
the only property worth owning in the unorganized world is intellectual
property, when the only matter that matters is brain matter!
I framed unorganization and wrote "trans" exactly as a way for non-past
oriented people to thrive and avoid intervenors. Both are states conferred
by the four forces: voluntary exchange priniple confers the former,
contestable markets the later.
To be honest At, history is not important enough for us to bother
disagreeing over: it is clear from your posts that you love and care
deeply for your homeland. All that means is that you go on thinking like
me but stay in South Africa, whilst I travel the world thinking the way I
do! Again your mental model is limiting you to opportunities arising in
South Africa to demonstrate your knowledge. This would be a waste!
> I also disagree with your claim on culture being more homogeneous.
I advocate a deliberate amplification of individual's differences: in the
organized world people were rewarded for being alike (rankers) and
punished for being different (gang members). In the unorganized world,
people will be punished for being the same (forced to accept dependence on
others) and rewarded for being different (branders) (See
http://www.unorg.com/index3.htm for "Unorganization: A handbook for
individual transformation"). Even so, differentiated amplified people will
of course continue to share in common basic physiological needs (sleep,
eat, drink, converse, if to varing degrees!) whilst applifying in
particular their internal value system. Internal value systems and mental
models are absolutely critical to individual success because ideas are the
currency of the unorganized world- and idea generation and creation is the
most enduring and valuable competitive advantage- that is why forgetting
history is important: "the best way to create the future is to invent it".
>Correct me if I understood you wrongly, but you often express in the book the
> opnion that these transnationals, should they operate as economizers, will
> be of great benefit to ordinary people.
Too many people assume that because companies are transnationals, they are
in some way a negative force: they can divide and rule, cause
"deindustrialization" and so on. I think that size does not matter,
behavior does. It does not bother me if a company is large, as long as it
is responsive to my needs. Small is not necessarily good, nor big bad, it
all depends upon behavior.
I have spent a lot of time in "trans" talking about making indivdiuals
accountable using shame, Tit to Tat, diclosure, whistleblowing etc. I
have just written an article for Ethos Business Ethics magazine (See
http://www.ethosmag.com) called "How unorganization delivers freedom from
greed, stress and deceit"!! I snip a little from it:
A world in which there are no constraints does not imply that there are no
restraints. There is a restraint upon intervening imposed by the diverse
global nature of people and countries. There is a restraint upon
intervening imposed by the ability for mistreated people to exit from
organisations and other collective structures without suffering economic
hardship. There is the restraint generated by contestable markets, which
ensures that if existing power holders attempt to exercise or abuse their
power, they will always provoke entry by new competitors. There is the
restraint conferred by the fact that everything said in private can be
published in public using low entry media such as the Internet. There is
the restraint on individuals conferred by the necessity of having a
non-threatening and non-extreme reputation if they are to be invited by
other individuals to participate in voluntary dynamic forms of
organisation called collapsible corporations. People are liable for their
actions to a greater extent than they have ever been. Loyal customers and
employees can exercise their ability and right to exit and never interact
with us again, irrespective of past relations. "We are only ever one trade
away from humility".
Because of the four fundamental forces, in the unorganised world,
individuals no longer need to put up with dishonest individuals. They can
exit and disclose, and without material disadvantage. People are not
constrained by space or place to working or dealing with people they do
not agree with or like. At the same time, the likelihood of violent or
anti-social events such as road rage is reduced in the unorganized world
because the vast majority of people are no longer compelled to
simultaneously share inadequate levels of resources such as roads and
offices. Individuals exercise discretion over how and where they spend
their time. New technologies such as mobile phones and teleworking allow
people to work from home and gain a balance in their life between family
and company. This puts them in greater control of their lives and reduces
the stress they feel.
> Finally, you write:
>
> > Thanks Sherri for starting the thread- it is bound to incite disagreement-
> > such divergence of opinions and expectations is the exact reason why
> > representative democracy is now flawed!
>
> The more we allow for a "divergence of opinions and expectation" in our
> democracies, the less it will be flawed.
>
> This last statement of mine has shocking implications. Let us discuss its
> implications.
At, again I agree with you last statement- we absoltely must encourage the
cacophany of opinions and behavior BUT we must also incorporate that
behavior into a new domocratic system. Representative democracy cannot and
does not incorporate and that it why it is flawed.
Regards, sincerely Simon Buckingham
http://www.unorg.com
unorganization: business not busyness!
--Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>