We can charge fees to industries that put pollution (or require them to purchase a permit at auction), and we can share proceeds from these environmental impact fees to all people equally. We can raise fees gradually (or shrink the number of permits issued), until a system of random surveys shows that impacts of various kinds are within limits that average opinion says is OK.
If we have a right to define limits to various kinds of pollution (because we have a right to breathe, etc.), this right, when joined with basic precepts of a democratic society, implies a duty to create civic institutions that ensure that the economy functions in a way that produces only the amount of human impact on the environment that the largest possible number of people think is acceptable.
If we take a random survey, we might expect to see roughly equal numbers of people who will say limits are too strict as those who would say they are too lenient. This will correspond to a situation where the number of people in the middle who say things are about right re overall impacts of various kinds would be at or close to the highest possible number.
We have a moral duty to engage in the civic and political life. (Respond to surveys, when this paradigm is manifest. Assert that limiting impacts is a basic function of government and insist that this function be carried out; and insist that natural wealth be shared, in a world where that principle is yet to be embodied in practice.) We have a duty to engage in the civic life to the extent necessary to produce structures of government that manifest basic human rights in reality. We have a duty to limit humans' impacts on the environment because we have a right to do so--and that right is not manifest if we do not do what is necessary to make it manifest. Rights and duties are inextricably linked.
Before this alternative paradigm will be embodied in practice, we must say, repeatedly, persistently, in public spaces and forums, that natural wealth should be shared. A pre-condition for making the ideas manifest in reality is to make them widely known.
With natural wealth shared, we will understand that the decision for how fast to put pollution or deplete various resources should be a decision shared, in principle, by everyone. For practical reasons, we might take a number of random surveys to find what the average opinion says on various issues (various kinds of environmental impacts). Because people's time is limited, we cannot ask each person to decide appropriate limits for every kind of environmental impact.
We have the ability to end poverty by charging pollution fees, etc., as a way to moderate impacts on the environment, then giving fee proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount. As citizens who have a right to share in the benefits of ownership, we have a corresponding right to receive compensation when that which we own is damaged or degraded.
We have a responsibility to end poverty because we know that no one person has any greater claim to a right to benefit from (a monetary representation of) natural wealth than any other person. If we see a persuasive argument for why some should benefit from natural wealth more than others, we can reconsider, but absent that, our responsibility is clear: Share natural wealth.
If the answer is "No", someone can say why...
"We don't have a right/responsibility to limit humans' impacts and end poverty because _______________________________________________________________________________________"
How shall we produce a concerted effort to turn government toward embodiment of basic moral precepts? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
If we have a right to define limits to various kinds of pollution (because we have a right to breathe, etc.), this right, when joined with basic precepts of a democratic society, implies a duty to create civic institutions that ensure that the economy functions in a way that produces only the amount of human impact on the environment that the largest possible number of people think is acceptable.
If we take a random survey, we might expect to see roughly equal numbers of people who will say limits are too strict as those who would say they are too lenient. This will correspond to a situation where the number of people in the middle who say things are about right re overall impacts of various kinds would be at or close to the highest possible number.
We have a moral duty to engage in the civic and political life. (Respond to surveys, when this paradigm is manifest. Assert that limiting impacts is a basic function of government and insist that this function be carried out; and insist that natural wealth be shared, in a world where that principle is yet to be embodied in practice.) We have a duty to engage in the civic life to the extent necessary to produce structures of government that manifest basic human rights in reality. We have a duty to limit humans' impacts on the environment because we have a right to do so--and that right is not manifest if we do not do what is necessary to make it manifest. Rights and duties are inextricably linked.
Before this alternative paradigm will be embodied in practice, we must say, repeatedly, persistently, in public spaces and forums, that natural wealth should be shared. A pre-condition for making the ideas manifest in reality is to make them widely known.
With natural wealth shared, we will understand that the decision for how fast to put pollution or deplete various resources should be a decision shared, in principle, by everyone. For practical reasons, we might take a number of random surveys to find what the average opinion says on various issues (various kinds of environmental impacts). Because people's time is limited, we cannot ask each person to decide appropriate limits for every kind of environmental impact.
We have the ability to end poverty by charging pollution fees, etc., as a way to moderate impacts on the environment, then giving fee proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount. As citizens who have a right to share in the benefits of ownership, we have a corresponding right to receive compensation when that which we own is damaged or degraded.
We have a responsibility to end poverty because we know that no one person has any greater claim to a right to benefit from (a monetary representation of) natural wealth than any other person. If we see a persuasive argument for why some should benefit from natural wealth more than others, we can reconsider, but absent that, our responsibility is clear: Share natural wealth.
If the answer is "No", someone can say why...
"We don't have a right/responsibility to limit humans' impacts and end poverty because _______________________________________________________________________________________"
How shall we produce a concerted effort to turn government toward embodiment of basic moral precepts? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Share natural wealth to embody basic moral precepts in reality
No comments:
Post a Comment