I get what you’re saying. But I don’t think such a philosophical approach will move the discussion forward. I don’t think many value one belief (freedom to spend) absolutely over the other (freedom from financial ruin). Most are willing to compromise and can be swayed by appealing to other things they might value, like saving lives.
That’s a more reasonable feeling, though I think the polls of popular opinion on taxes, healthcare and guns undermine your argument. I think it really does boil down to fierce defense of raw philosophical ideals for most people. People, at least in America, are not swayed by compromises on saving lives and lay down deep hooks into value systems based on ideals and then believe the defense of those ideals may rightfully entail loss of life and it can be acceptable.
I actually think the left’s dismissiveness of this way of life, spurning sincere engagement on moralistic ideals to try to use government to push compromises on people, is what fails to move the discussion forward, even though I personally subscribe to most of those pragmatic social welfare approaches.
