Innovation as a Basic Human Right

Both the textbook reading and supplementary article this week demonstrated the failings and inefficiencies associated with using capitalism as a tool to guide markets to the most socially responsible outcomes. While it is hard to argue with their premise, more interesting was the diversity of their proposed improvements to these problems. The supplemental reading strongly favored economic democracy, a system that it defines as one in which public power is more directly accountable to those affected by it. This too, took multiple forms such as public banks and worker cooperatives. The textbook, while also exploring the concept of increased work democracy, also noted some of the weaknesses in the ability of a purely democratic system to efficiently regulate business and developments in the interest of the public. Several other options were presented in its place, many of which appear as logical extensions of the development of an institution dedicated to the study and regulation of the market, which was presented in chapter 7.

Perhaps one of the most novel and unique solutions presented in the text was that of auctioning the right to innovate. As we have explored in the past, unintended consequences are all but impossible to avoid in full (regardless of how much planning and research is invested). In the event that an unintended consequence does occur, the preferred strategy to address it is efficient and intelligent trial and error. Quick identification of the problem and implementation of revisions to compensate are key to the iteration process. The downside to intelligent trial and error is in the resources it requires. This is what the concept of auctioning the right to innovate seeks to solve. The basic proposal, as presented by the text, suggests creating a maximum quota of major innovations that can be pursued every year. The demand created to own one or more of these annual rights will dynamically set their price, with corporations that believe more strongly in their innovation more willing to pay more. The money created through the sale of innovation rights will then go to the analysis and monitoring of possible negative consequences created through this innovation. Additionally, using the rough relationship between scale of an innovation and the likelihood of unintended consequences, monitoring institutions can more easily set priority between development projects. While the merits of this proposal are substantial, there are naturally certain concerns that will be raised. I believe that these concerns tend to fall in one of three areas: questions of effectiveness, questions of implementation, and questions of ethics. Questions of the effectiveness of the proposal are understandable, but difficult to answer without the implementation of test studies or extensive research. Similarly, questions of implementation could only truly be addressed through the extensive investment of time and money into engineering the system (which is not the goal of this discussion). Questions of ethics, however, are more accessible at the present "concept stage" of this proposal.

First, it is important to clarify that the primary target of this auction system is designed to be large businesses. The text even emphasizes that certain exemptions could be enacted for small businesses that are unable to compete at the prices of larger organizations. Without delving too deeply into the businesses as people argument, I accept that many of these concerns may not fully apply at the scale at which they are implemented. At the same time, this proposal represents what I believe to be an unprecedented restriction on business. Historically, we can find examples of government using taxes, environmental concerns, and anti-monopoly laws to restrict the flow of innovation created by the market. This is understandable, as activities restricted by these regulations have a direct, measurable effect on the rest of society. Trying to regulate the pursuit of an idea, however, is fundamentally different. Quite apart from the logistics of regulating ideas and degrees of pursuit, we must consider how the process of innovation is tied to humanity. Is innovation a basic human right? Perhaps not in the same sense as clean water and basic sanitation are (or should be), but it is hard to deny humanity's historical association with it. The development of basic tools and rudimentary construction is one of the achievements that we consider fundamentally (though not exclusively) human. It has helped us survive from ancient times until now (despite its clear potential to harm us). I think that many would consider it to be at least some form of expression of free speech, even if that right is not considered essential globally. Of course (as is the subject of much of this course), innovation can create consequences detrimental to others. Some of humanity's greatest inventions have been born of unlikely ideas and unexpected sources. While the point of this proposal is to eliminate or closely monitor those innovations less likely to benefit the world overall, is an outright ban on any activity or long-shot idea that cannot garner adequate funding a fair or responsible approach?