Replies

But, of course, the entrepreneur DID build his invention, frequently with opposition from neighbors, industry and, especially, government.
The child king is wrong, as usual. He does not so much need to be thrown out as taught a lesson. This nation is about personal freedom and the dignity of individual effort, not mass hysteria and lining up to get a handout.

I posted an essay on FR in 2004 in the run-up to the Bush-Kerry election that discussed Greenfield's point about innovation. One of the most critical issues of that election (and any presidential election) was who would get appointed to the Supreme Court; since rule by the political elitists favored by Democrats instead of constitutionally limited jurists favored by Republicans would damage our freedom to innovate. Here is an excerpt:

Americans traditionally hate arbitrary sources of power and authority. Yet our our system of checks and balances, coupled with our historic faith in an Absolute truth and our contemporary faith in the discovery of scientific truths, is so efficient that is has been no barrier to social and economic innovations that stand the test of time. Thus, American pursuit of truth has led to more political freedom and more scientific, medical and technological discoveries than any other political philosophy in recorded history.
Having strict constructionists among the Justices would not rule out innovations in society and technology; in fact, it may ensure that our historic formula survives and continues its generous, inclusive productivity — the American Dream that permits anyone to aspire to own property, patent or trademark inventions or run for public office.
Most importantly, a panel containing strict constructionists would redress the power of radical individualists to achieve the covert political overthrow of Western civilization through an aggregated coup d’etat of smaller, less obvious legal coups. It would force civil revolutionaries to use the front door, not sneak in through the back door by justice-rigging.

Posted nearly ten years ago, the essay was eerily far-sighted about what is happening today. Read the whole thing here.