Talk to any gun owner, and they'll invariably invoke the idea of “freedom.” Freedom is an interesting thing. We’ve been conditioned to think of freedom as an infinite resource, limited only by government. We’ve also been weaned on the idea that our freedoms are precious. Which is already a contradiction. Something can't be both infinite and precious. But I digress.
I'm always a little leery of pointing out inconsistencies; after all, every inconsistency has a “mirror image” inconsistency. And really, every issue should be dealt with on its own terms. Otherwise, I'm technically guilty of an ad hominem attack.
But sometimes, something comes along that's so egregious that I'd really be remiss not to point it out. This is one of those times.
In 2014, Florida passed a law for forbidding insurance companies from experience rating gun ownership. That would be Fla. Ch. Stat. 790.338(7) which states (emphasis mine):
An insurer issuing any type of insurance policy pursuant to chapter 627 may not deny coverage, increase any premium, or otherwise discriminate against any insured or applicant for insurance on the basis of or upon reliance upon the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition or the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition. Nothing herein shall prevent an insurer from considering the fair market value of firearms or ammunition in the setting of premiums for scheduled personal property coverage.
Take a moment to digest that. It’s one thing to refuse to enact sensible gun control legislation. It’s quite another to pass laws that specifically restrict the freedom of private entities from taking matters into their own hands. These same “leave things to the private sector” folks won’t even let private insurance companies use math to, say, offer discounts to policyholders who don’t have guns. Some of the things insurance companies do routinely take into account include: ownership of an aggressive dog, alcohol and tobacco use, history of mental illness, weight, accident history, family history of cancer, sex, age, and zip code. But gun ownership, which corresponds to an actual adult choice, with risks and consequences? Forget about it.
In contrast, let’s look at Fla. Ch. Stat. 761.061:
(1) The following individuals or entities may not be required to solemnize any marriage or provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage if such an action would cause the individual or entity to violate a sincerely held religious belief of the individual or entity:
(a) A church;
(b) A religious organization;
(c) A religious corporation or association;
(d) A religious fraternal benefit society;
(e) A religious school or educational institution;
(f) An integrated auxiliary of a church;
(g) An individual employed by a church or religious organization while acting in the scope of that employment;
(h) A clergy member; or
(i) A minister.
(2) A refusal to solemnize any marriage or provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges under subsection (1) may not serve as the basis for:
(a) A civil cause of action against any entity or individual protected under subsection (1); or
(b) A civil cause of action, criminal cause of action, or any other action by this state or a political subdivision to penalize or withhold benefits or privileges, including tax exemptions or governmental contracts, grants, or licenses, from any entity or individual protected under subsection (1).
Got that? Insurance companies using rational business decision making processes to reduce their costs? That’s illegal in Florida. But a religious organization refusing to do business because they hate gays? Totally cool.
I can’t think of a clearer example of the hypocrisy of the self-styled libertarians.
What both of these examples show is the inherent fallacy that I hinted at in the first paragraph. I believe quite firmly that freedom is really a finite resource, which can only be moved from one place to another. Maybe you remember this trope from shortly after 9/11 in the run-up to the Iraq war.
I contend that this slogan (printed on T-shirts and fridge magnets and beautifully lampooned in Team America: World Police) is absolutely correct. Sometimes, you pay for one of your freedoms with another freedom. Sometimes, somebody else has to give something up. I’d love to see us do a proper brainstorming session on all the examples of this — there are many, if you take the time to think about it. If you take a freshman math, physics, or chemistry class you might learn about degrees of freedom. I think that’s a pretty good metaphor for what I’m talking about, and I like to think this is more than mere wordplay.
I hope this diary helps get you started when framing these issues.
Cheers,
Cooch