change is happening within the system. consumers are educating themselves and using their penny of empowerment to support greener, fairer businesses. progress.
so where does the government come in?
when environmentalists advocate protective legislation, capitalists often invoke images of '1984' illustrating the necessity of free choice as the basis of free society.
is limiting the free market to sustainable practices the same thing as telling people how to think?
so the question remains, should we decide what products are in the market or should we let free capital decide?
ps. biodegradable coffee cups cost 10 cents each.
2 comments:
Although staunch capitalists talk about an absolute free market being the surest way to enact human betterment, and that participation in such a market is an undeniable and inalienable right, they fail to acknowledge that the free market is limited by governments and other legislative bodies all the time.
For instance, an absolute free market would not criminalize drugs or prohibit selling arms to the Taliban. There are clearly limits; the free market has already been justifiably limited. It's just that the capitalists deny that the new limits that responsible people are trying to enact are justifiable. But, devoid of any compelling reasons as to why limiting commercial and economic activity to protect the environment is unacceptable, they are forced to appeal to some axiomatic and absolute moral principle: the free market, or read larger, human freedom.
But, there are clearly ulterior motives other than protecting freedom, namely, making profits.
Anyway, to answer your question, not all limits to the free market are inexcusable, and this includes limits put in place to protect the environment, especially when the potential environmental damage could jeopardize human life.
What of the invisible hand? Can it be possible that, in a market based system, we allow the consumer, through their 'dollar votes' to guide the producer towards making decisions that serve society overall?
When government sets environmentally based legislation, they are, in essence, intervening with the process of human self interest. We, as a society, are imperfect animals, and we choose styrofoam cups. As Bernhard notes, the role of government is necessary in this case.
But why blame business? Under a central planning system, the results would be even worse. Government would determine the consumption of resources, stifle innovation, and ultimately, fail to develop or advance the technology or resources to benefit society overall.
Post a Comment