PBS is doctrinaire liberal and there's nothing creative about following doctrine. It's like rebellious teenagers who want to be different, so what they do is they all follow the leads of their peers. A truly rebellious teenager, thinking outside of the box, would choose to follow an Amish lifestyle or something, not be a goth, not be casting a wide net to find a homosexual teenager who he could append to his social circle to use as a badge of his own enlightenment.
Originally Posted by tacomancer
Google and IBM are in the same boat - they need to innovate and offer solutions. If you're looking for a truly revolutionary business, W. L. Gore & Associates probably fits the bill - no job titles, people are hired and then expected to develop their own job title and responsibilities. That's very far removed from traditional practices.
There's nothing wrong, a lot right, about breaking with tradition but that doesn't imply that every break with tradition is beneficial and it's this distinction which seems lost on many liberals. Here's Chesterton:
Without the willingness to break from tradition we would have never changed our models and never developed (except perhaps technologically) from a social organization perspective. I.E. we would still exist within tribes.
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.