PHILIP M.HAUSER 103 



far the lesser risk to future generations to proceed on the assumption 

 that needed nonrenewable materials may be exhausted. Especially is 

 this the case when the current sacrifices involved are nominal. 



In the category of external reasons I would place the requirements, 

 and for the time being increasing ones, of national security. To the 

 extent that our free enterprise system results in greater exploitation 

 of scarce and strategic resources than does the competitive Commu- 

 nist system, we may be jeopardizing our and the free world's way of 

 life and our national future by risking their exhaustion. 



If these and other considerations dictate a policy of conservation 

 then, and only then, are we confronted with the value questions Gal- 

 braith raises. His major contribution lies, I believe, in his making 

 explicit and answering in the affirmative the question usually avoided, 

 when the need to conserve is accepted as a premise, namely: Is it de- 

 sirable to curb the United States appetite to consume? Galbraith is 

 quite aware that the affirmative answer requires increased government 

 interventionism. For he feels, and it is difficult to disagree, that the 

 free private enterprise system will not find a way, via the market 

 mechanism, to place itself on, and hold itself to, a national resources 

 diet. 



Thus, accepting the need for conservation provides the first value 

 dilemma and leads Galbraith to the unpopular position that the United 

 States appetite for consumption needs curbing. This conclusion in- 

 exorably leads to perhaps an even more unpopular position — namely, 

 that the federal government must do the curbing. The second major 

 value question, then, is that centering on the desirability of further 

 extension of federal government powers that would enable it, like the 

 stern and relentless wife, to force the United States economy on a diet 

 that would be "good" for it — for national security in even the short 

 run, and for levels of living of future generations of Americans in the 

 long run. 



As an aspect of arguing the need for increased federal controls, 

 Galbraith treats the restriction of "freedom" counter argument with 

 some impatience. But then this impatience is understandable if one 

 accepts the premises from which he starts — namely, that the general 

 welfare is to be given priority over individual freedom, and that the 

 individual freedom which would be infringed would indeed be far 



