On "Going Green" & Liberty

Anna's post, as a statement of personal lifestyle choices, is unassailable. I, too, eschew spending on many of the excesses I see around me. I wish others would be "more responsible" and make "wiser choices." I agree that many in our society are too focused on "ME" and too materialistic. I wish everyone would do something nice and attractive with their property. That they would mow their lawns, keep their trash picked up, not seek to dominate the landscape or block their neighbor's view. I wish they would volunteer more, become more involved in the lives of their children, care more about their kids' schools, take better care of their health, etc., etc., etc.

The problem with a crusade, however, comes from the inherent conflicts between competing values. One that I place near the top of my hierarchy of values is individual liberty. In essence, liberty means the right to do things -- make choices -- that others who are more powerful, perhaps wiser or smarter, believe are bad or wrong. I wouldn't mind being the one who decides what's right and good for everyone. But I rebel at someone else's judgment being imposed on me. Hence, I believe in the right of others to build huge, perhaps tasteless, monuments to themselves, to drive Hummers, to fly in private jets, to eat regularly at McDonalds, to drink, to smoke, and otherwise to do many things that I would not do because I believe they are foolish, or destructive, or selfish, or simply a waste of money. (On second thought, I might go for the private jet if I had the bucks, but I still probably wouldn't buy a Hummer.)

I believe each individual has the right to make his own lifestyle choices. I think it is stupid to spend $4 on a cup of coffee or cocoa at Starbucks. I also wouldn't spend $78 on the organic turkey Mom saw at KTA the other day. (I'm sure it is probably better -- but not enough better for me to shell out the extra bucks.) I buy See's rather than Godiva; I buy the ice cream that is on sale. I don't patronize Cold Stone, or even Baskin Robbins, with any frequency. Mom shops at the farmers' market because we like the fresh produce -- and the prices. It feels good to support the local farmer. But if things cost significantly more, they better be worth more, or I won't pay the difference. If I can't tell the difference or taste the difference, I don't want to pay for it. (A friend bid our roof redo, but he was $1,000 above the lowest bid. I'd have liked to give him the work, but it didn't make sense to me to spend the extra grand for the same work and materials. If the difference had only been a couple of hundred, I would have probably given him the job, but $1,000 was above my pake threshhold.)

I don't believe the government should require me to fasten my seatbelt (even though one may have saved my life many years ago -- before mandates) or buy an expensive airbag or wear a helmet or even put my kids in approved car seats. (I should even be able to ride in the back of a pickup, if I choose.) I can't accept the argument that society has a right to require such because of the costs imposed on society as a result of accidents and injuries. If this is an appropriate rationale for limiting my freedom, then why not mandated exercise programs or diets? How about fines for anyone who is more than 20 lbs. over weight! Our personal choices in these areas cost society far, far more than do a few accidents. (On the other hand, more early deaths might save Social Security!)

I believe in recycling -- to the extent it makes economic sense. A significant percentage of aluminum in this country is recycled -- and has been for a long time, because it is so much more efficient to reuse it than to produce more -- even though it is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust. This happens without any government mandates. That is not necessarily true of many other products, for which recycling may be an inefficient waste of resources. It may be much more efficient to dump the stuff in a landfill, where it can later be mined if/when it becomes worthwhile to do so, or even burn it for a little extra energy and to save space. I believe the marketplace does a reasonably good job in determining the most efficient use of our resources.

I'm generally not wild about much of the fruit imported from Mexico and Central America -- it often doesn't taste that good. But don't feel sorry for the poor farm worker down there. He's very happy to have a job, and if every American refused to buy his produce, he'd be even poorer than he is now.

Corporate farming and Wal-Mart clearly have adversely impacted the little family farm and the mom and pop store on the corner, and I'm much opposed to government subsidies for the former. As individuals, we have the right to seek every opportunity to patronize the latter and avoid the former. However, if the former were closed down due to the efforts of those who idealize the latter, the middle and upper class might smuggly proclaim that they had made the world a better place while drastically reducing the world's food supply and raising substantially the cost of living. The substantial improvement in the quality of life that has been experienced by the poorest in recent decades would be reversed. The poor throughout the world live much better now because of the more abundant food and lower costs from U.S. agribusiness and Wal-Mart. (No kudos required -- they didn't do it for us, they did it to make money. But they succeeded because we, the consumers, liked their products/prices.)

In the beginning, we are told, we were presented with a choice: We could all be required to do all the right things or we could have the freedom (agency) to make our own choices, to make mistakes, and to suffer the consequences. We chose the latter then. I still do.