> You may think that you are maximizing freedom by maximizing immediately visible freedoms but the reality is that you are cutting the freedom of others short and they do the same to you until you end up with much less freedom than if you took the direct hit to freedom.
You're equating the inherent renunciations of living in society (such as respecting others' right to live and personal property) with arbitrary restrictions such as "consume less". Consuming more doesn't lead to direct harm to anyone - it is your hypothesis that everyone consuming more leads to a global issue.
If the problem is human consumption, which grows linearly with the amount of people on this planet, perhaps the problem is that there are too many people. Why does nobody suggest population control in some form? Why is the answer always "let's make everyone's lives miserable so the population can keep growing"? And what happens when population grows so much that even the "lesser" consumption presents a problem? What happens when we reach the lower limit of human consumption requirement, and the number of people is so high that the total consumption still presents a problem?
Or to go even deeper - why even focus on restricting consumption in the first place? Is there any data to suggest that human consumption is actually a problem, compared to the massive amount of energy spent for industrial and military purposes? Without such data, the argument seems like a red herring, shifting the blame to people, while keeping the real culprits in the shadow.