In Defense of Self-Interest

Our current government appears to be over-populated with intellectuals drafted from academe who are most decidedly antagonistic to the concept of individuals pursuing self-interest, as if self-interest is the root of all evil, and if only it may be eliminated, the main impediment to Utopia may be eliminated. The thinking is wholly misguided and off-base, as self-interest cannot be eliminated, and, even if it could be, the results would be disastrous, as they have been in every attempt that has been made to do so. The pursuit of self-interest is the most basic of drives, innate in the human being. It cannot be eliminated by government edict, no matter how much those sheltered in academe might imagine a world without it. To be sure, the pursuit of self-interest guide some to pursue practices that are against the public good, and the focus of good governance should be to limit those adverse practices. However, bad governance being more common than good, it is the government itself that is most commonly the instrument implementing the negative aspects of self-interest at the expense of the common good. Those in government are not immune from self-interest, and, the pursuit of their self-interest is far more likely to be against the common good than any others in society.

Ever since Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, published "The Wealth of Nations," the case for the benefits of the pursuit of self-interest has been made, as envisioned as an invisible hand guiding people to the common good through their pursuit of self-interest. However, Smith, himself, warned of the natural inclination for self-interest to guide practices that conspire against the public good, limiting the influence of competition and the effectiveness of the invisible hand. The prevention of such collusion to fix prices, and other anti-competitive practices, need to be the subject of effective governance, but often bad governance is the tool that enforces such practices. The thinking that the government can banish self-interest in its entirety, will only result in bad governance enforcing fixed prices, limiting the innovation and freedom that a vibrant, dynamic economy relies on.

To understand the extent to which self-interest, and private initiative are essential in our integrated economy, consider the availability and ubiquitous presence of the ballpoint pen, and whether such a device would be available without a relatively free, integrated economy. A ballpoint pen is available for nominal cost at any number of local retailers. Numerous independent and failed efforts to develop a ballpoint pen occurred before an effective model was eventually developed. If a government program were ever responsible for developing a ballpoint pen, a doubtful prospect, given that the fountain pen manufacturers of the day would likely have lobbied against it, as would the quill suppliers have lobbied against the development of the fountain pen, but, if a government program were responsible for developing the ballpoint pen, it would likely have failed, as the initial designs did not work very well, mostly having to do with a bad choice of ink. Or, perhaps, we would still be using leaky, ineffective, ballpoint pens, based on a poor, government-approved design. Consider, also, the amount of self-interest that is involved in the manufacture of a ballpoint pen, so taken for granted in our economy. There are plastics for the body of the pen, for which the source material is crude oil, refined and developed using polymer chemistry. There is the metal for the ball, that needs to be mined and refined and manufactured. Ink, of appropriate viscosity and drying properties, needs to be developed and manufactured. The product must be manufactured and assembled. Packaging must be developed and manufactured, involving cardboard and plastics, as well. Printing on the packaging must be developed. Once produced, the product must be delivered to the various retailers, and advertising must be produced to ensure effective sales. Every step of the process involving contracts ensuring private self interests are protected, patents, copyrights, and trademarks protecting the private interest rights of the individuals responsible for all the innovations along the way. All ensuring that we have ubiquitous availability, at nominal costs, of ballpoint pens.

If the government had succeeded in suppressing the pursuit of self-interest, would there be any such thing as something as simple as a ballpoint pen? Think of the complexity of a personal computer and other consumer electronics, all the contracts, and patents, involved in protecting self-interest required for those readily available and affordable products. Would they exist if the government were responsible for their development, production, and distribution? Think of the life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical procedures. Do we really understand the implications of attempting to remove self-interest in health care? Do we really expect that a government that we cannot imagine would be able to develop and produce a ballpoint pen would be able to develop, produce, and distribute a cure for cancer? Do we really want to risk our very lives on the ability of government to provide health care, without the benefit of the pursuit of self-interest?