NOTE: This post serves as an addendum to this one.
One of the best ways to learn about complex things is by analogy, because analogy takes something you know about and relates it to the new thing in an insightful way. Because human liberty and free market capitalism are still poorly understand by so many people — including even economic experts — compiling analogies should help.
Analogy #1
If two glass receptacles containing fluids were separated by a thin membrane, so that some types of fluid could cross, then it would be okay for the fluid of the part which represents Religion to encroach into the part which represents Government -- but not the reverse:
Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osmotischer_Druck_in_einem_U_Rohr.svg
Attribution: Johannes Schneider, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
In this analogy, Religion is represented by the light-blue fluid at left, and the membrane at bottom allows some of that blue fluid to seep across into the right side, which represents Government. Notice how the composition of Government is somewhat altered as Religion (values and morals) influences the Government.
Government doesn't become free of Religion, but Religion becomes free of Government intervention. While the less politically-powerful entity, Religion, gets to influence Government -- the more politically-powerful entity, Government, does not get to influence Religion.
The result is a “membrane” of separation between Church and State.
Another real-life example of Analogy #1
Another example of this necessary process involves the notions of Liberty and License and the dignity of children.
Liberty is a type of freedom that leaves individual rights intact. License is a freedom to violate the rights of others. School counselors are not at liberty to take underage kids to the doctor to get gender reassignment surgery, because that surgery is a form of genital mutilation, and mutilation is a violation of individual rights.
But when you seek the License to violate rights, you undermine genuine Liberty.
Another version of this same theme is that a child is at liberty to approach an adult and attempt to engage in the kind of intimacy or affection which is appropriate to children, but an adult is not at liberty to approach a child and attempt to engage in the kind of intimacy or affection which is appropriate to adults.
The more-powerful party to the exchange (the adult) is not allowed to assert unrestricted influence on the weaker party (the child).
Because Government maintains a monopoly of political power in a geographic region, special rules about influences are required. The Government can be influenced by the People, but the People should not be influenced by the Government — except for, say, hesitancy on violating the rights of others while knowing Government protects them.
Analogy #2
If a coach gave a pep talk and told the team he'd make them the best that there is, but instead of building their skills, he quietly paid-off (i.e., bribed) all of the referees of the future games -- so that his team won the championship -- then he didn't make good on his promise. His real team is no better than before, and it is all an illusion.
It even prevents them from getting better.
If a central bank inflates the currency to cut interest rates and therefore incite investment, then the real economy is no better than before, and it is all an illusion.
It even prevents the economy from getting better.
For the same reason that we don't let coaches pay-off (bribe) referees, we should not let a central banks print fiat currency in the attempt to artificially stimulate economic activity. Both cases result in a lie that does not make you better off in the long-run.
Those are two analogies that can help in the understanding of complex things, like whether there should be bidirectional influence between People and Government, or whether influence should only ever be allowed to flow in one direction (like as is also shown in the example of adults and children).
The second analogy refered to the exercised control over a medium of exchange (fiat money), something which has the power to alter the signals people receive, but which does not have the power to grow the stock of useable resources in the world — i.e., money, alone, is incapable of actually making people better off.
*This post may be updated in the future with more analogies as or when new ideas come to light.