I have heard it from my own pastor, so I can’t claim that it is not happening at all, but can we honestly say that exhortations to prudence, temperance, etc. are given anything like equal time with other, more hot-button social issues?

I hope you’re not suggesting that this phenomenon isn’t happening now. With the possible exception of Prosperity Gospel televangelists, clergy make anti-consumerist remarks all the time, especially at Christmas, but that does not get media coverage unless environmentalism or some other gimmick is involved.

But again, you’re speaking in explicit religious terms. Which, I think, was Dreher’s original point: Why does the argument against these things, sinful though we/you may believe them to be, always have to be made on religious grounds? Is there not a rational basis for arguing against these things – a basis that may, in the long run, be more inclusive, convincing?

Freedom is best measured by responsibility and therefore justice, not abstract “rights”.

Sexual freedom? And as soon as the woman is pregnant or the Man has AIDS? And does not arguing for a lack of restraint discriminate against the BDSM community?

The market is merely an extension of this. Bankruptcy and Divorce – why is the latter easier?

But “restrictions” in both spheres are merely the recognition that individual acts have wider consequences.

There is the father of lies, and I don’t think it is mere coincidence that “the cheque is in the mail” and “I’ll respect you in the morning” are both at the top of the list.

Are not both lust and greed both cardinal sins?

In theory, at least, I’m always going to want to err on the side of more personal freedom. But a lack of restraint – be it moral, be it governmental or what have you – is indeed a major factor in our current economic environment.

And for me personally, that’s a problem. When it comes to personal behavior – sexual behavior, let’s say – I absolutely believe the state should not be interfering in individuals’ decisions. But where the market is concerned… I tend to think there must be some restriction of “freedoms,” specifically because a lack of restraint there can lead to major ramifications for many. Which is exactly what’s happening now.

So there’s a disconnect there. And we say, well, faith might tie up both ends, right? If faith can teach restraint then – ostensibly – you don’t need governmental restraints. But again, as per the New Yorker link – I just don’t see where it actually works that way. And I think we have this overinflated sense that things used to be so much better. I just don’t know that they were.

I hear you. With respect to your first paragraph, then, the question shifts to whether Rod could persuade me that we currently have “too much” individual freedom, i.e., that that’s the culprit. I don’t believe it is, but as you say, it’s indeed a valid argument in which to engage.

But the strong rection does indicate that most modern conservative have no idea what conservatism means historically. To them it is classical liberalism with a little respect for tradition thrown in if you are lucky.

Absolutely, but there’s long been this idea that without restraints, there can be no freedom, as appetites/self-interest take over. There’s something to that; it all comes down on controlling the appetites.

You might control them by restricting freedom – sodomy laws, for instance. Or regulation of Wall Street.

Or, you might seek to control them via the church/religious faith – permitting people to control themselves to a greater extent than they otherwise would. Does this actually work? We like to think so; but maybe not.

As a start, I would refer you to one of my earliest posts.

The only reason Rod is catching flak is because he is right over the target.

Don’t you feel there’s something amiss in stating that the greatest threats facing us come from too much individual freedom, rather from the harmful actions of properly free people?

Also, if Rod could equally have said “all political problems are ultimately ethical problems because they result from disordered wills,” he should have done so, if his intention was to communicate and persuade the greatest number of people (and those most likely to disagree with him otherwise).