Posted on 07/03/2002 1:18:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Several weeks ago the ACT Legislative Assembly endorsed the latest brainchild of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development — the Earth Charter — and decided to adopt it as a framework of principles for governing.
Although the charter’s web site says it is an “authoritative synthesis of values, principles and aspirations that are widely shared by growing numbers in all regions of the world”, and the principles in it “reflect extensive international consultations conducted over a period of many years”, the Assembly’s decision to endorse it is one of the most irrational in Australian political history.
A fact fundamental to sustainable development — one that everyone can agree on and that is not new — is that current stocks of physical resources are limited. In fact, humans have recognised the existence of scarcity for a long time, and modern market institutions evolved to peacefully address the issue of resource sustainability both within and between generations. Indeed, the very purpose of having markets is that they solve the resource-allocation problem: they shift finite resources away from individuals who place a low value on them, to individuals who place a higher value on them, in a voluntary, mutually beneficial fashion, without resources being wasted.
There is no guarantee that market allocations of finite resources will eliminate the jealousy and envy of certain individuals — also known in UN circles as “social justice”, “equity” or “fairness” — but in a complex world where billions of economic decisions are made every day, the ability of markets to solve the vast majority of resource-allocation problems is unquestioned: there are simply no other mechanisms known to humans that can perform this function at all, let alone as successfully as markets actually do.
Western civilisation in general — and Australia in particular — has prospered and continues to do so thanks to these institutions. But of course markets do not and cannot work without well-defined, well-enforced private property rights or without the rule of law. Thus, the primary role of government in a free society — and what should also be the primary goal of the ACT Government — is to perform these functions.
The “authoritative” Earth Charter, however, rejects the role of markets in allocating resources, rejects the role of private property rights, and rejects the concept of rule of law. These institutions are vital for human civilisations to flourish and have brought us untold freedom and prosperity, but there is no discussion of these terms in the charter. In fact, they are not even mentioned — so how can the principles of the charter be used as a guide for good governance?
The charter fails to recognise the fundamental law of economics: all economic activities are costly, in some way or another. Instead, the charter simply emphasises the bald-faced lie that it is possible to design a costless world where there are no trade-offs between economic benefits and resource depletion. Thus, the charter seeks to prevent pollution of any part of the environment, and to allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic or other hazardous substances, irrespective of the possibly enormous offsetting economic and social benefits that accompany these costs.
And, it continues, because the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the “needs” of future generations (ignore for now the fact that these future needs are simply unknown and unknowable), we are to “take action” to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive, and place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm.
Never mind the fact that future generations will be far wealthier than the current generation; never mind the fact that scientific knowledge is almost always incomplete and inconclusive; and never mind the fact that “need” has never been the basis of rights in any successful human society.
Other contradictions in the charter are simply breathtaking. The charter seeks to “empower” every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, ensure universal access to health care, to “guarantee” (how?) the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources “as required”.
According to the UN, in a world of finite resources it is possible to meet potentially unlimited demands for education, medical treatment and other human desires without requiring that the producers of those services receive other resources in voluntary exchanges.
Thus, the charter concludes that meeting these needs is simply a matter of choice, requiring no compensation for producers. It is simply enough for the charter to assert that humans have the “right” to these resources — never mind that in a free society a right that impinges on the rights of others is not a right at all, and never mind the fact that private property rights — the backbone of free modern societies — require voluntary agreements and mutual benefits for transfers to occur in the first place.
Indeed, the charter avoids all discussion of private property rights, and has apparently found a solution to the resource-allocation problem: we are to adopt “lifestyles” that do not “emphasise” material goods, as if living without material goods is just a matter of changing individual preferences.
Finally, as if all this were not enough for the charter to be consigned to the dustbin of history, we have the other assertions in the charter which are simply nonsensical and immoral: it takes the repugnant view that every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings. Thus, even life forms that are harmful and potentially devastating to the entire human race, such as the AIDS virus and the black plague, are worthy of preservation, and are placed on the same moral plane as human beings.
If resources were unlimited they would be free. Every resource you have to pay a price for is limited, but the resources you pay more for are more limited than the ones you pay less for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.