I was reading this article about how Greenspan, in the last year of his tenure, appears to be off his game. What caught my eye though wasn’t that there is a “debt maelstrom”, after all we all have heard about he high trade deficit, budget deficit and the potential problems they pose. No, what caught my eye was the following,
A continuing reliance on deficit spending is precarious for the economy and patently unfair to the future generations who will be stuck with this rising mound of debt.
Now my guess is that the editorial board at the SFGate.com (the San Francisco Chronical) are liberal. From this it is probably fair to surmise that the person(s) responsible for that editorial feel that abortion should be legal. Yet it seems strange to invoke fairness to future generations when looking at tax/budget policies. I mean in one case, the argument is that the fetus is not a person and hence has no rights. People three or four generations from now also do not exist, and thus also have no rights. The idea that something is “unfair” to them is just patently ridiculous…using the above reasoning. Seems like a pretty substantial consistency problem, but maybe I’m wrong.