The following is an excerpt from The Innovator Versus the Collective
Every government intervention is justified as being in the “public interest,” the “common good,” the “general welfare,” or something similar. These are collectivist clichés, intended to imply that some policy will have widespread benefits. But in truth, they are used to justify government interventions that benefit some at the expense of others.
The “public interest” ultimately pits the individual against the collective. The individual is forced to place the values and interests of the group before his own values and interests. The judgment of the collective supersedes his own. This ultimately means that the individual is prevented from following his own judgment. Time after time, we have seen that the collective has been wrong, Time after time, we have seen that the courage and vision of the innovators to challenge the collective is what moved mankind forward.
Property rights provide the means to resolve conflicts between individuals, allowing each to choose the use and disposal of his property. Each individual is free to contract and associate with others, as each believes is beneficial. A seed company can choose the terms by which farmers can use its products, and farmers are free to accept or reject those terms. An Internet service provider can offer faster service for certain customers or websites, and customers are free to accept or reject those terms and conditions.
But many believe that these practices somehow violate the rights of farmers or Internet users. They believe that farmers have a right to unilaterally decide the terms and conditions of buying genetically modified seeds. They argue that all Internet users should have access to the same services. They imply that individuals have a right to an object—such as seeds or fast Internet service.
But there is no such thing as a right to an object. There is only the right to be free to take the actions necessary to create or earn an object. To claim that there is a right to an object ultimately means the violation of actual rights.
For example, if individuals have a right to fast Internet service, then service providers must provide that value regardless of their own judgment. Twenty years ago, the Internet as we know it did not even exist, but now we are told that every American has a right to the fastest Internet service possible. In short, we are routinely told that people have a right to something, whether it is housing, education, health care, or Internet access, and others must provide those values. And sadly, as “rights” to objects increase, the actual rights of the individuals who produce those objects decrease.
When collectivists speak of the “public interest,” they really mean that some should receive benefits that they could not obtain through voluntary means. They seek to force some individuals to produce so that others can consume. They seek to force some to act contrary to their judgment. This is true whether they want to limit oil drilling, reduce the use of coal in generating electricity, obtain faster Internet service, or anything else.
When collectivists are unable to achieve their goals through persuasion, they resort to government coercion. What they cannot achieve through reason, they seek to achieve through force. If we want to continue to experience innovation and progress, we must reject force as the solution to social problems. We must defend the rights of property, and with it, the moral right of individuals to live their lives for their own happiness.