Can I ask in all seriousness – what if one does not wish to be among people who do not share the same values? By this I mean a lot more than simply granting all people the” right to exit,” an unwelcome arrangement, as even offering this is no guarantee that someone else has to or will accept you, nor does it seem to allow that this is a harshly “expensive” safety valve. For example, people who know me find it odd that I choose to live in the People’s Republic of New York. Taxes are high. The unions run the state. There are few people who share my views here. And so on. But I love the change of seasons. I love the geography. I love the food. I love the proximity to many places. And much more. Plus, my political views are not my entire constitution, despite their obvious importance. Exiting to a “freer” place (I don’t really believe that there is one) would be very costly, even if it was “easy” to go there. In econspeak, I get a lot of “consumer surplus” from my current location, and the government/state has managed to reduce how much of that surplus I end up keeping.
So in general I am asking, how do we reconcile the drastically differing values of people?
For many values there is no problem accommodating multiple values. For example, if the highest value for someone is to live a life where he constantly is challenged and the highest value for another is to live a completely unchallenging life, I do not see their peaceful coexistence as a problem. I do not see the same harmony for other values, especially the one that I hold dearest – liberty (properly defined — over at the AHI-West site we will be writing this down in great detail in the coming months). Is it possible to hold as a value, “transfer resources from some” and expect it to not be viewed as evil by those who cherish liberty? Is it not ironic that the cherished value of liberty allows for others to enter into social contracts with one another to do all manner of anti-liberty policymaking, but the views of those who are anti-liberty do not accommodate their “adversaries?” At the same time, I would like to learn how those who do not share liberty as their highest value can claim that their values are being trashed by the existence of that opposing view?
