Consumption of resources is a rewarding but dangerous art.  Indeed, of all the ways to consume this earth, it is a wondrous matter that anarchy is kept so steadily at bay.  We owe this restraint mainly to two concepts evolving before our eyes: justice and the golden rule. 

By way of definition, the golden rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – is a personal rule meant to coexist with the governmental rule of justice.  A world devoid of both would permit the evil desires among us to flourish without redress.  Unacceptable.

I see in the world today that we have an abundance of laws, financial meddling, and corruption, which leads to over exploitation of land and resources.  This is the wrong kind of consumption.  It has been estimated that it would take between 2-6 earths to sustain the American standard of living for every person on the planet.  I imagine if the golden rule were exercised across the board, we could live peacefully on one, healthier and more free.  This is the right kind of consumption, and it leaves plenty of room for diversity.

So how should we consume resources in light of these two rules – justice and golden?  Our answer is altogether philosophical and practical.  Philosophically, the art of consumption is really the power of production.  For example, to consume a locally grown organic apple is to promote an environment where such an apple is produced.  To consume an 8-ball of cocaine smuggled into the country is to create a different kind of environment entirely.  When we look only at the apple and/or cocaine on our plate, we succumb to ignorance.  Ironically, it’s a state of mind too many of us deem “bliss” whether we know it or not.  

And on the practical front, the answer to our question is that we should consume resources in a “sustainable” or “productive” manner.   One of my favorite books on this topic is Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan:

To feed ourselves otherwise [than by the logic of nature] was ‘unsustainable,’ a word that’s been so abused we’re apt to forget what it very specifically means: Sooner or later it must collapse.  (Omnivore’s Dilemma, p. 183) 

Our first question is how we can use the golden rule to consume sustainably.  Or taking it a step further, how do we connect good stewardship of the earth, personal responsibility, and individual rights?  Well, for starters, envision the kind of world you want to live in by considering which economic system is the truest expression of the golden rule. 

I’ll venture that most people, regardless of their background, would like to promote consumer freedom of choice, but still harbor great fear of unbridled capitalism.  It appears that people have difficulty reconciling conscience here, which means we have difficulty following the golden rule, and are drawn to collectivist policies as a compromise.  Because of this compromise (of conscience to an extent), we have too many laws, and lobbyists, and political gamesmanship.  To separate the rhetoric from the research, one must remain diligent in objectivity.  For additional reading on the dangers lurking behind collectivism, I would like to direct readers to the work of G. Edward Griffin. 

I am continually amazed that all tools necessary for peace and prosperity in the world already exist, and yet we still see widespread destruction and poverty across the globe.  Might it be that we don’t really have free markets and justice?  Who and what is preventing us from achieving these goals? 

To answer these questions one must look into the history of elitist control of natural resources and political power.  And unfortunately, research shows that much of what passes for a "free market” and “republic” in the united states  of America these days is often nothing more than a highly regulated, government-manipulated mockery of these ideals, where the same empty mantras are repeated by elite media, corporate, and government officials day after day. 

Let’s take the example of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).  Independent research shows a history of financial and political collusion behind the FDA’s promotion of big pharmaceutical products, and an active stifling of access to natural health remedies.  Fortunately, naturopathic doctors often lead the crusade to show how FDA rules passed in the name of food and drug safety actually put more lives in jeopardy than they protect.  But the public is not without culpability, as many people fear and neglect health freedom in the same manner as they do capitalism, compromising the golden rule in the same way.

 

My hope is for the masses to see more clearly the use of natural supplements as they are meant to be - a true expression of freedom of choice, a constructive human endeavor to better mankind, a remedy.  

Free markets work well in theory, and would ideally represent the golden rule in action.  One powerful antagonist of the free market can be seen in government subsidies for America’s factory farms, which sell cheap product so consumers never pay the true cost of their 99-cent portion of a tortured animal, or as Michael Pollan reported:

The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn’t take account of that meal’s true cost – to soil, oil, public health, the public purse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the workers in the feedlot and the slaughterhouse and the welfare of the animals themselves. (pp. 200-201)

It is manifest that industrialized factory farms pollute themselves and beyond.  It may seem too logical that polluters ought to account for the true cost of the environmental harm they cause others, and that the free market provides the solution.  But because of free market interference, it is the government that actually pays the polluter.  Unbelievable.   Examples of this pedigree help show that governments are most effective when they limit themselves to policing (redressing unfair harm) rather than subsidizing.

And as the free market is an expression of the golden rule (lest we force one another around with money), it naturally coexists with justice, such that disputes over legal rights (such as a factory farm’s ‘right’ to pollute a local river) can be resolved by courts under scientific standards for causation.  In those cases where there is no market mechanism to protect a valuable resource (air and water, sadly, often fill this category), we may find that justice can be assisted by EPA-like regulatory bodies, comprised of specialists working outside of politics and financial conflicts of interest, to help gather evidence for prosecutors, provided in a responsive system of checks and balances.  As a caveat, an unbridled free market (agorism) has never been tried on a large scale in human history.  Nor do I recommend it, as raw exploitation of resources in the world as it exists today, given the powers-that-be, can only make things worse. 

On a related matter, what does the golden rule require in politics? All markets exist in political contexts, and I’ll venture that most people would like to promote individual rights and equal application of laws.  And yet we can just as easily cite the golden rule to argue for diminishing our republic in the name of national security.  My own humble opinion here is that we need not compromise fundamental liberties in order to oppose terrorism, nuclear weapons, and the like.   Instead, why not keep fundamental rights, promote local production of resources, employ a defensive military strategy, purge the evil within by actually enforcing criminal laws equally, and see what happens to foreign enemies? 

All of this post is meant to focus upon one main point - the need to internalize the golden rule in a logical manner.  How else can we connect good stewardship with individual rights and personal responsibility?  I reason that it begins and ends with each individual’s conscience, where it should be.  Why obey conscience?  Well, is it not logical that in what measure we measure, it shall be measured to us?

        So let us be responsible stewards of free markets, where as consumers we choose sustainable businesses using the greenest and most humane technologies, keeping production local, costs representative, and customer responsiveness high.  As citizens, let us promote government that is willing to do justice.