Is there an inherent conflict between stewardship and personal liberty? Does stewardship imply a top down approach - a concentration of power - and does that then limit our personal liberty?
Or to ask more directly, is it at all possible, in this culture, to have any respect for the land and still be able to make a buck? It seems tough.
The ironic thing, it seems to me, is that It's easy to get to the part about the concentration of power. That seems to happen quite naturally. What's hard is having that power applied properly to stewardship.
We've had the debate over global warming and the need for a more ecologically sustainable development for most of my lifetime. Yet political forces have tenaciously obstructed any rational discussion of these issues. Why this rage and antipathy against what seems like a very practical idea? Don't you want to maintain a clean environment for future generations? What sort of self-respecting person would not?
I can imagine that there are some circumstances where personal liberty trumps responsible stewardship, but not always.
I would assume that someone like representative Stephen King, a "pro-growth" congressman and global warming denier, has a real strong moral compass, that he is looking out for the liberties of the common man. But why can't he do that and also consider the evidence? Is it wise to take such a fixed position towards liberty, if that "liberty" leads to a diseased environment? Is such a position practical?
I haven't the slightest idea how he, or anyone else, can justify it while still claiming to be working for the good of all the people. Let's be honest, the real reason behind this is the concentration of power. The congressmen is only a professional who is servicing a client more powerful than himself.
Stewardship is tough to work through, if not impossible, in such a setting.