I’m so tired of these conservative freedom arguments. Somehow on one side it’s always the freedom to consume, like the freedom to own a 5,000sq ft home, or an oversized SUV.

Conservative freedoms never seem to be about my freedom to enjoy listening to the birdsong of native birds because we saved their habitat.

It's probably not worth arguing about the definition of "freedom". To my eye, you're referring to two concepts that are so different that trying to use the same word for them just creates more confusion.

It's insidious anti-action propaganda.

The implication is that if someone actually wanted to save the birds, you should support them, but actually everyone is just looking to curtail your freedoms and nobody is actually looking to save the birds. Therefore don't even bother trying to save the birds, if you care at all about your freedom. Otherwise you're a soft gullible mark, you wouldn't want to be a mark, would you?

That such propaganda tends to align with consumption and/or antisocial and/or selfish behavior is a big clue, but it's not the end goal.

It is my freedom to have a big lifeless lawn that takes the place of local plants and displaces insects, which in turn starves bird populations. Why doesn't my yard have any birds?

Lawns aren't the problem. I used to live within the Willamette National Forest in Oregon and there is no wildlife there. Sure, there's a few deer, bear, and birds, but no where near as much wildlife as I can find in my suburban neighborhood. The original forest was nearly completely clearcut and replanted very densely with just a few species of timber trees. The canopy is so dense, there is no under story. There is nothing for wildlife to eat in these forests.

> Lawns aren't the problem

> The original forest was nearly completely clearcut...just a few species of timber trees.

So clearcutting and planting non-local, dominating plants isn't the problem,but clear cutting and planting non-local, dominating plants is the problem.

This is obviously two sides of the same coin, when you remove native plants, native wildlife goes away. Just because certain species of wildlife can make it work in the suburb doesn't mean that large lifeless lawns, especially in areas without intermixed native green space, are not killing off birds, insects, etc.

The timber trees that were planted were local species. It is the monoculture that is the problem.

Even if they were local, you're still describing a situation where human intervention planted a monoculture that's terrible for the environment.

That's what I was pointing out. What's your point or are you just repeating me?

Are you saying that this conspiracy is masterminded by… Big Bird?

What freedoms are those?