Egalitarians are often upset that technological breakthroughs, whether new cancer drugs or computers, are first only available to the wealthy while the masses must wait until they’re more affordable.
This concern neglects the fact that new products are not only costly but risky. Moreover, many experimental drugs and devices initially appear hopeful but fall flat in practice. New technologies often entail higher than expected maintenance costs or simply prove too erratic for success. In a market economy, those risks are (thankfully) borne by the wealthy. They can afford the high cost and low quality associated with breakthrough products. Central heating and air conditioners; radios, televisions, and DVD players; GPS, anti-lock brakes, and now automatic braking systems; even experimental medical procedures -all initially costly and “clunky” products.
By supporting the initial market, wealthy consumers encourage producers to invest in product enhancements and production efficiencies that – if the product proves useful – make the breakthrough available to all. The rich buy expensive, complex and low quality products – and, in so doing, make it possible for us to obtain a simpler, more affordable, high-quality product.
In experimental biology, we use white mice to test the unknown. In capitalism, the rich voluntarily accept this role. Many are upset over income inequalities, but if one reflects, we need these “white mice.” What would life be like without them!
That liberals wish libertarians to go away is, perhaps, not surprising. But the issue is much more serious than even Jonah Goldberg realizes. McCain’s championing of “getting the monied interests out of politics” and Obama’s pledge to eliminate their influence both amount to an attempt to eliminate economic interest groups (and, indeed, interest groups that are in any way allied with economic interests – such as independent free market groups) from politics.But, politics is about interest group influences. If economic interest groups are eliminated, only ideological groups are left – right and left groups driven by cultural, ethnic, environmental or other religious values.Is that world likely to prove more tolerant, more compassionate, more “concerned?”
My personal vision of the future is to find myself about to testify in Congress on some creative expansion of the state.As I’m about to testify, the chairman speaks up:“Mr. Smith, before you begin, I have a question I’d like you to answer.Are you now or have you ever been associated with the wealth producing sector of the United States?”
A world where economic interests are disenfranchised – indeed, even de-legitimized – is a world that will have little regard for economic – and, thus, indivdiual – liberty.
Ideologues have created far more horrors than have even the most rampant of business villains. My understanding is that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung were not motivated by profits.
Coming from the UK, CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray knows a little something about the history of political empires. Today, however, we find ourselves faced with a new era of eco-imperialism, particularly in the field of global warming policy. Iain explains:
“Eco-Imperialism” = efforts by the developed world to impose its environmental priorities on the developing world. Developed countries seek to pressure the Third World into reduce greenhouse gas emissions “for the sake of the planet,” regardless of its impact on the standard of living and prospects for economic growth in those nations. Cost-effective energy use is critical for Third World people, and is the fastest path toward ending poverty.
This, and other great videos, are also available at the new online multimedia destination CEI On Demand.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
