Freedom versus Moralism.

Moralism is fatal to freedom.

Freedom can be defined as the absence of opposition. More specifically, it is your ability to act contrary to other's desires, beliefs and values. Every decision that reduces the number of transactions available to society also reduces freedom.

Freedom is constrained by informal influences and political power. In order to build a functioning society, the disparate values of human beings must be reconciled. To do so, everyone’s freedom must be curtailed in some manner.

Reconciling differences through informal means requires individuals to trade off reciprocal advantages. They usually do so by making incremental changes, giving up what they value least for what they value most. Freedoms are given up voluntarily through informal channels.

Reconciling differences via formal channels (i.e. government action) is undertaken by force. Values of one group are imposed, rather than chosen freely, on a particular group or groups. Freedom is taken away through formal channels.

When values differ least between groups, assigning government the power to punish individual or group actions results in only a small sacrifice of freedom. For example, punishing murderers and child abusers is almost a universally accepted value, and allowing the government to punish individuals engaging in such actions is not a huge sacrifice of freedom. We could inflict such punishment quicker and less costly via mob action, but allowing government to gain additional knowledge about crimes is an acceptable cost, and an acceptable loss of freedom.

If, however, we allowed government surrogates to make decisions for us on the healthcare we should buy, land we could purchase, energy we should burn, food we should eat, education we should pay for, taxes we should pay, financial security for retirement we should accept, and drinks we should drink, millions of people would experience an unsatisfactory loss of freedom.

It is the difference between the preferred choices and the imposed values that requires the use of force and the curtailment of freedom. When social justice warriors (liberals/progressives/those attached to the government teat) believe “their way” is the “only way” and superior to the values and choices of others, they will be willing to use force to impose those values on others, and curtailing the freedom of those that disagree with their liberal values is of no concern to them. When those social justice warriors are met with indignation and denial, they are willing to use even more force rather than accept defeat of their sacred causes.

The fact that New York liberals living in buildings with 24 hour guards, and Hollywood liberals living behind gates and sending their children to private schools, and coddled college students self-righteously demanding safe zones and trigger warnings from equally spineless university professors and administrators, can ignore the working classes (and others') resentment of progressive policies justified by "transcendent morality" is not a surprise. Obviously, the surprise came November 8th, and those dependent on the government teat for sustenance now must be weaned despite the wailing and crying.

 

This is where I have ended up as well. I am a Bible toting Christian who is big on obedience to Jesus, but I see a difference between personal behavior and even public cultural norms compared with laws. Because once you write a law prohibiting a type of behavior you are allowing for the use of violence to prevent or punish that behavior. People will lose their livelihood, time with their families, etc.

I am now totally against drug use but also totally against laws against drug use. I believe that homosexual activity is a sin, but I am totally against laws restricting how people relate to one another personally, even to the point of marriage. Of course, I also don't think churches should be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their convictions or be punished for refusing to do them. That is freedom really. Letting other people do what they want even though you really don't like what they are doing.

 

While I agree on much of what you're saying, there are occasions where your freedom to choose, impacts my freedom. for instance, you want to have a party at your house and play music til 3 am, I want to go to bed early and have it be quiet. It is an either or choice. Neither is a liberal or conservative stance, and neither is more moral than the other, just different choices.

I value the environment, clean air and clean water much higher than your ability to choose the fuel of your choice. There may eventually be a way to accomplish both, but right now its a choice between the two. There may certainly be choices that are made based on moral positions that impact your freedom but not all choices are based on a presumed superior morality. I don't think its more moral to use solar and wind energy, I think its smarter.

I'm presuming from your email that you prefer a carbon fuel and I would assume that's based on the economics of it. If that's the case, then your choice imposes a consequence on me. It may not be as immediate and direct as making you buy a different power source, but it is a cost/consequence nonetheless.

Trying to paint all the opposition as "holier than thou" SJW's just because they advocate a position that impacts your definition of "freedom" is a position that you should reconsider.

 

I disagree with the idea that playing music too late vs. turning it down to a reasonable level so your neighbor can sleep is not a moral choice, but that comes down to definition.

I also disagree with your categorical assertion that the choice between fossil fuels vs. clean air and water is a binary choice.

Ranking things in terms of categorical importance will get us nowhere. You say clean air and water is more important than fossil fuels, but if you were having a massive heart attack and the ambulance was out of gas and could not reach you, how would you rank the two items?

When comparing "things", you have to look at incremental tradeoffs. Recognize that they are two different things, and then recognize the cost of the trade of one for the other.

Politicians use language like you stated in making the false choice of fossil fuels vs. clean water. They do this so they can take the decision making power away from individuals.