Tweet [1]
… is from pages 220-221 of Robert Cooter’s and Benjamin Chen’s 2019 paper “Creativity, Economic Freedom and Human Rights,” which is chapter 11 of Economic Liberties and Human Rights [2], a 2019 volume edited by Jahel Queralt and Bas van der Vossen:
Applied in the economic domain, creativity involves the invention of new products, processes and organizational forms, as well as the modification of familiar ones. But novelty is not sufficient. To qualify as economically creative, an innovation must fulfill human needs at a cost commensurate to its benefits. The introduction of an ingenious good or service – say one-hour delivery of online shopping by drone – is not economically creative unless it has a realistic chance of financial success. In contrast, lobbying an electorally vulnerable legislator for an exclusive license to operate a casino may bring financial success, but it is not economically creative (in economic terms, it is merely “rent seeking”).
DBx: Yes indeed.
Using force – which is the principal tool at the disposal of the state – to get what you want is primitive and unintelligent. Among the many comical ironies of political “progressivism” is the fact that “Progressives” fancy themselves to be unusually enlightened, intelligent, and (of course) progressive when, in reality, their ideal world is one featuring that most primitive, unenlightened, and uncreative of means: physical force exerted against fellow human beings.