EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) Ecology and Rights - Literature of Liberty, January/March 1978, vol. 1, No. 1
Return to Title Page for Literature of Liberty, January/March 1978, vol. 1, No. 1The Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
Ecology and Rights - Leonard P. Liggio, Literature of Liberty, January/March 1978, vol. 1, No. 1 [1978]Edition used:Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought was published first by the Cato Institute (1978-1979) and later by the Institute for Humane Studies (1980-1982) under the editorial direction of Leonard P. Liggio.
Part of: Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought, 20 vols. 19781-982
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:This work is copyrighted by the Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, and is put online with their permission. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Ecology and Rights
“Ethics, Ecology, and the Rights of Future Generations.” Modern Age (USA), 19 (1975): 260–271. Do we have an obligation for the welfare of future generations? Yes, say advocates of environmental control and zero economic and population growth. No, however, we can reasonably conclude after examining the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of their arguments and policies. We have to consider the consequences of their economic approach to issues and problems. The assertion that we have an obligation for the welfare of future generations, stripped of its rhetoric, involves a call for more power to government. Many proposals, if successful, would bequeath to future generations not only socialistic conservation, but a technologically, scientifically, and economically backward society. 
Rational decision about what to leave future generations would be made in a society in which no innovation would be possible. Many measures advocated by the ecology and antigrowth movements are decidedly retrogressive and are masks for elitist special interests. |
