At a bakery you can have any kind of cake you like: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, raspberry.. Indeed thanks to the great defenders of individual choice in the baking world there are now hundreds of flavors for you to choose. You can't choose bacon or chicken at the bakery however, and bakers have yet to introduce the lamb custard. The baking industry has been deliberately designed and regulated so as to maximize the number of available products—up to a point. In baking circles it is heretical to suggest that fish is an appropriate dessert choice. And shoes will never be for sale.
In our economic system (bakery) one may not choose one's salary, office, boss, or the quality of his workstation or area, and only occasionally can he choose his hours. Of course, we can choose between one terrible job where we do not have these choices and another terrible job where we do no have these choices. Why, there are many jobs available to us, in principle, wherein we cannot choose anything important. We can have chocolate crappy jobs, strawberry crappy jobs and even vanilla crappy jobs. But always at the heart of the choice is our total future restriction.
And this is the basic structure of choice: Every choice we make is always one from a limited number of options. But our choices are not only limited by tacit assumptions about what should or should not go on cheesecake. Our choices are also limited by our looks, our wealth, our intelligence – and most of all today, by our location. More and more however, we are sold the virtue of increasing the number of options available, but not their kind or quality.
Solutions to this problem of the “quality of economic choices” abound, but many attempts to improve the quality of the choices are systematically undermined by contemporary economic and political thinking. Democracy proper is feared and despised in many areas of the current intellectual climate and “Individual Freedom of Choice” is presented as an inviolable virtue of contemporary society – a Natural Right against which all societies should be judged. It is taken for granted that this freedom is meaningful, that its prescriptions and prohibitions are clear – that a society of great freedom is clearly distinguishable from one of limitation. And indeed, that “limitation” is the natural opposite of the freedom to choose.
However, there is a fundamental incoherence to the universal prescription of the freedom to choose: since anyone choosing anything is impossible, the parameters of this freedom are who is choosing and what they can choose – ie., it is impossible to universalize (and thus cannot be a Right at all).
In raising choice as such to a moral imperative we create choices for the sake of choosing, moral dilemmas where none need exist. In a system of private healthcare a parent of two children may face a dilemma: In an accident affecting both children, and with limited funds at the family's disposal, which child should the parents prioritize? Perhaps more pertinently, in a system of private education, and with limited funds: Which child should be sent to the better private school, and which the worse? It is a virtue in a system of “free choice” for this question to be forced upon you by circumstance. With universal education, health, etc. parents are spared the horror of evaluating their child's worth. The “cost” of a universal system is that you have fewer choices – but in what sense could this be a cost at all, in what sense can choice as such have a value (i.e., the act of choosing regardless of what options are available)?
The relevant political and moral calculations should, then, always be: What options are we exchanging when we act politically – what new choices are being forced upon us, what is the kind and quality of their options? To be able to pose these questions, however, we cannot do so as individuals – since an individual is always beholden to the system in which they are operating. An individual can no more decide on the meaning of words in the language he's using as how other people will treat him.
An individual person cannot demand of society to be treated as equal to every other, for example. For some, these limitations of circumstance (the loud bigotries of society, economy, and politics) are the natural inheritance of any free person – freedom consists in playing this game, not in organizing collectively to challenge it. What individualists of this kind miss is that these bigotries are already collective decisions, that racism is merely an institution without self-awareness.
Therefore, breaking apart collective bodies (from, say, a group of citizens to a worker's union) does not “free” individuals from the tyranny of collective decisions; it just changes the parameters of limitation toward the irreflexive, unchanging, and narrow. In the absence of a union, the board makes all the decisions for workers. In the absence of a government, prejudice takes this role. When fewer people provide the parameters of our choices, fewer interests are expressed: When it is only the board who decides how a company is run, then people work the longest hours possible – leisure time existing only in equilibrium with efficient work. And when a larger irreflexive group provides the parameters of choice less moral interests are expressed: racism, sexism, feudalism, sectarianism and the other stupidities of spontaneous reaction.
Thus the individual is in a constant face-off with his culture and circumstances, the tension emanating from the fundamental constraints on his choices. Only by making collective decisions reflective and accountable, by making economic, political, social and moral systems themselves available for modification – for choice – can the individual assert, through others and themself, any meaningful freedom of choice.
--Michael Burgess
The following comment was originally intended for the Nozick thread, but it certainly applies here also. My point is that sure, every choice is made in a context of certain constraints. Still, there are certain choices that (eg) Robert Nozick might want to call “free” but don’t really cut the moral mustard.
I have already argued that Nozick must prove that an economy of so-called “free” choices will never change a just society into an unjust one, and he never made that argument. We can go beyond saying that Nozick’s premise is unsupported, and argue that in fact it is clearly false.
One of the few agreed principles between liberals and Libertarians is that armed robbery is immoral. When I am waylaid with the traditional threat “Your money or your life,” there is nobody who wants say that I am free to choose in a way that maximizes my self-interest. From the simple Golden Rule point of view, certainly the bandit would not wish the same treatment upon himself. From a Kantian point of view, I am being treated as a means but not an end, and certainly the bandit would not will his own behavior as a universal law. Martin Buber would point out I am being treated as an It, not a Thou. Hobbes would observe that the bandit could well have killed me outright and taken the money, without pretending it is a transaction at all. The State of Nature is red in tooth and claw.
But the most revealing view on the robbery situation is Hegel’s. A robbery is a version of the master-slave scene. If I were Superman (or an Ubermensch) I might be willing to fight for the dignity of humankind against a meaningless bullet. But for a mere mortal, the marginal utility of the cash in my pockets is trivial compared to the predictable total loss of my life. It may be a rational decision to meekly hand over the loot, but it’s the opposite of free will.
So it’s understandable to take a moral stand against every form and every instance of coercion, which is a recurring theme in Libertarian arguments. My point is that the morally relevant factor here is not violence or the threat of violence. It would be equally violent for a bandit to threaten victims with a fist fight, or even with public humiliation – that would be the crime of blackmail, which is a felony. Whether the victim faces a loss of life or of their livelihood, they are still comparing the marginal utility of one option with the total utility of their entire future. In other words, they are not choosing between two viable options and expressing their personal preference. After all, one of the options is to be permanently excluded from all future choices. Nowadays bankruptcy is an erasable condition, but it used to mean debtor’s prison.
The problem for an argument like Nozick’s is most acute when we observe that it is practically universal among the working-class population to make choices every day which contain some element of the marginal utility vs. total-loss dichotomy. If you don’t have enough savings, then losing your job can mean losing your home. If you don’t have enough insurance, then getting sick could mean bankruptcy, even if your life can be saved. This is the true moral role of the “social safety net” – not that it preserves a minimum lifestyle for the indigent, but that it allows the middle class to participate in markets using the decision processes of marginal utility.
But it’s more to the point to observe that nobody on the Randian/libertarian side is openly discussing the question of whether all transactions are equally voluntary. They just assume it, unless there is an author I have missed. Nozick certainly breezes right past the issue. Rand treats poverty as a contagious disease, and advises a ‘cordon sanitaire’…
Democracy without freedom of choice is like a man without brain, the brain is like a building, it houses all the mechanism that allows the body to function, if the building is destroy or damage all it house is either destroy or damage Destroy democracy leads to autocrthic rule and damage democracy leads to backdoor democracy. For democracy to function in its principle the building that house its nucleus must be protected and respected, and that building is “freedom of choice” the bujilding that house Nigeria democratic system today has long been damaged causing defectiveness in all it process. Defects system leads to wrong choice that leads to wrong policy, that leads to wrhong actions, Nigeria democracy lacks freedom of choice, citizen are not given the opportunity to excercise their democratic rights, instead criminals are smuggled from the backdoor and impose on citizen. Nigerians are not given the opportunity to sort out the goats from the sheep, instead goats are shoved into their throats to swallow without water. you can imagine the agony. Imposition is not a true democracy and a true democracy cannot be zone. The reason Nigeria democracy lacks accountability, transparency and check and balance is because the building that house the nation democratic mechnism has been damaged and the functionality of the nucleus either destroy, damage or tampared with.
Michael – Just curious, but was this editorial written in response to the libertarianism blog-post comments thread?
Nope, I believe it was written before the Nozick episode.
Thanks, Michael. Can I ask – what inspired your blog-post?
A dumb comment asked of Zizek (something like, “we have the Freedom to Chose” ), which he responded to with a flippant example.
I was attending a lecture of his.
Incidentally he’d probably have some scepticism towards the conclusion, but it is Hegelian.
Thanks for the explanation, Michael.
The nominally “free” nature of market transactions obviously isn’t fundamentally free in a philosophical sense, and it’s very annoying when libertarians allege that it is, but then, is there really anything that is? And how are state alternatives that aren’t even nominally free any less unfree?
E.g. in Sweden, it used to be the case that the state decided what school you went to. With a change in government, now students can choose schools. The schooling system is still super progressive: it is funded completely by taxes, run by the state, very high spending per student, no private schools, focus is on low performing students rather than gifted students, schools with poor demographics and performance get much more funding and support etc etc, but the progressives are mad about the choice thing and want to revert to the state deciding which school students go to.
Also, thinking only in terms of intra-national groups gives a very incomplete and inaccurate picture. Libertarians and panarchists alike want the *really* poor, i.e. people in third world countries desperate for a better life, to be able to move, trade etc freely. Progressives however prefer they remain to suffer in the third world out of fear they would “lower the minimum wage” etc. This is despite economists across the board agreeing that open borders would roughly *double* global GDP while not substantially lowering wage for existing workers in first world countries. Open borders would surpass by orders of magnitude any welfare or aid program.
To sum up, the progressive critique that choices in a market context aren’t free is valid, but progressives also aren’t being completely honest when they conveniently ignore most of the negative impact on choice their own preferred and implemented policies have.
I hate to repeat this so many times but stuff like this is part of the reason why it’s so regrettable that you don’t plan to take a look at e.g. Caplan, Huemer etc. For a brief taste of Caplan’s case for open borders, check out
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double
Also, I can’t resist putting some of what I wrote about democracy (from the comments on http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/11/01/libertarianism-sensibilities-and-the-tools-of-social-change/#comments) here too:
“We”?
Who decides there should be a vote in the first place? Who decides what’s to be voted on? Who decides what the options are? Who decides who gets to vote? Who designs the voting system? And how can imposing the outcome irrespective of participation and consent be justified?
In the case of the US: third world inhabitants who die as a result of US voters approval of wars, and who suffer in poverty as a result of US voters not wanting to let them in to the US (despite there being people in the US willing to house, employ etc them) aren’t even allowed a say, despite them outnumbering US voters and arguably suffering the most from the outcomes of US policy.
While many of those who are imprisoned in the US for possession of plants are actually US voters and thus at least allowed a say, maybe they didn’t participate in the election etc etc.
To illustrate: imagine some of your friends want to eat out with you. For whatever reason, you decline. Ah, but there will be a vote. And the vote is on whether you come or not, the options are aye or naye or abstain, all of the friends (and you) get to make their case, one vote each, the option with the most votes win. etc etc
Clearly, irrespective of all this, regardless of the outcome, your friends don’t actually have any authority to coerce you into coming, and you have no obligation to go.
Admittedly, this is a very simplified version of how things work, but is it really that far from the truth? There is nothing wrong with consensus based decision-making, indeed, in many cases it’s the best option. But it doesn’t appear to justify a lot of the things people usually take for granted it does.
take a look
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_dismal_science/2014/07/sweden_school_choice_the_country_s_disastrous_experiment_with_milton_friedman.html
I appreciate the link, but this article isn’t entirely accurate. There are no private schools in Sweden. It would be great if the catastrophic PISA scores could be attributed to school choice, because then all it would take would be to remove school choice and scores would rise again.
This however completely ignores the much longer term transition of the Swedish school system into a postmodernist one*, and the massive impact from the unprecented and accelerating influx of children of immigrants from third world countries who can’t speak or read Swedish (let alone read at all), do basic arithmetic etc etc. (Yes, you can be an advocate of open borders and still acknowledge the strain large immigration can put on existing systems)
In any case, my point is about choice (or the lack of it) and not this other stuff.
*the details of this would probably interest all listeners of this podcast. It includes things like removing sex ed, phys ed, teaching of evolution etc in order not to offend religious fundamentalists, removing depictions of sperm and eggs because they enforce gender stereotypes, and in general removing science-based views of knowledge because they are incompatible with postmodernist ones, and allegedly undemocratic, violent, promoting of inequality etc etc.
“There are no private schools in Sweden”
This is not true.
“transition of the Swedish school system into a postmodernist one”
By Sweden you mean make-believe Sweden?
The so-called “friskolor” operate completely under the state schooling system, with state regulated programs and courses, grading systems and curriculum, and are funded by the state. The school “market” completely lacks prices, so students can choose schools without caring about cost or value, and the schools can attract students by marketing and bribing them with “free” laptops, as opposed to by providing actual education. When enough risk-free profit has been put into the pockets of the operators, they abandon the students and shut down the schools.
I couldn’t come up with a better example of state corporatism if I tried. But maybe these schools are in fact “private schools”, and maybe it’s even a “free market” schooling system.
“[skolan] skall motverka traditionella könsmönster och könsroller” Skollagen
“alla människors lika värde … solidaritet med svaga och utsatta är de värden som skolan skall förmedla…” Läroplanen
The postmodernist schooling system has been documented extensively by amongst others Mathematics Dr. Tanja Bergkvist at http://tanjabergkvist.wordpress.com
You seem to be under the impression that the existence of “friskolor” somehow rules out the existence of private schools.
In fact there are several private schools in Sweden (or “privat skolor”), schools that are not funded by the state but instead charges a yearly fee for the students.
On the topic of “friskolor”, lets call them publicly funded schools, They are in no way required to follow as you say “state regulated programs and courses, and curriculum”.
If someone is actually interested in what the Swedish school law (Skollagen) and the guiding documents for teaching (Läroplanen) actually says
I have tried to locate the sentences bearing resemblance to your above quotes (the translation is mine):
Läroplanen:
“The school have a responsibility to counter-act traditional gender stereotypes. It follows that students should be given opportunity to develop their skills and interests regardless of gender”
Skollagen:
Education should be made in accordance with basic democratic values and the basic human rights such as the right to life, liberty and integrity. All men being equal in dignity; equality and solidarity among men.
I find it hard to think of these statements as “postmodern”. Infact I find them quite praiseworthy.
I was under the impression that the few private schools had been shut down after the Lundsbergs scandals, but they hadn’t, so you’re right, private schools do exist. In any case, there are only a handful and they’re hardly significant when looking at the schooling system in Sweden.
Friskolor are subject to Skolverket and Skolinspektionen regulations and get shut down if they don’t follow them.
Encouraging students to develop their skills and interests regardless of gender is great. Actively counteracting “gender stereotypes” is not so great. Who defines what is and what isn’t “gender stereotypes”? And why should students who develop skills and interests that happen to align with perceived “gender stereotypes” suffer attemps to counteract that and socially engineer them? It seems completely incompatible with respect for the individual.
Skollagen and läroplanen sound praiseworthy, especially translated into English. However, the Swedish meaning is subtly different (especially dignity != värde), and the actual interpretation and implementation of Skollagen numbs the mind, because like I mentioned it includes things like removing sex ed, phys ed, teaching of evolution etc in order not to offend religious fundamentalists, removing depictions of sperm and eggs because they enforce gender stereotypes, and in general removing science-based views of knowledge because they are incompatible with postmodernist ones, and allegedly undemocratic, violent, promoting of inequality etc etc. Look to the blog for more examples.
This sounds very similar to socialist and (actual) anarchist critiques of capitalism. A common refrain among anarchists especially is that we’re being given the choice between bosses, but never the choice not to have a boss.
Considering the scuffle between ZIzek and Chomsky in the past, I’m surprised that they come out on the same side of this issue, or am I misreading your point?:
“Take mass transportation. Going back to markets – if you take an economics course, they tell you markets offer choices. That’s partly true, but very narrowly. Markets restrict choices, sharply restrict choices. Mass transportation is an example. Mass transportation is not a choice offered on the market. If I want to go home today, the market does offer me a choice between a Ford and a Toyota, but not between a car and a subway. That’s just not one of the choices available in market systems, and this is not a small point. Choices that involve common effort and solidarity and mutual support and concern for others – those are out of the market system. The market system is based on maximization of individual consumption, and that is highly destructive in itself. ” – Chomsky
Chomsky and Zizek have very many basic ideas in common. Zizek is more interested in how ideology operates where as Chomsky just thinks you can look at the world and ideology within texts, etc. becomes obvious.
Chomsky’s insistence that “obvious” means empirical which means there’s no need for any theory is their point of contention. Chomsky here is an idiot.
Complaining that the range of jobs you can choose from is limited is like complaining that when jumping into the air you can choose to jump up 1 inch or 2 inches or 1 foot but not 10 feet.
It’s because jumping 10 feet is just not feasible.
Sorry you can’t work 5 hours a day, 3 days a week, painting pretty pictures outside in a beautiful meadow AND get paid $10,000 a day. That’s just not possible and would not be possible regardless of how you modified the “cultural system”.
Also, it’s childish to claim that all jobs are crappy and that there isn’t “real” choice there.
There is a very real difference between being a janitor and being a software developer and the range of jobs available today is in fact significantly wider than it was 100 years ago.
Then you start talking about how in some cases having fewer options is better than having many options.
Well yea… choosing between a Ferrari and Mclaren is better than choosing between 100 rikshaws that only differ in their color.
Doesnt mean it’s not better to able to choose between 100 rikshaws than it is to able to choose between two rikshaws.
This goes doubly for your universal healthcare and education arguments.
Your whole universal healthcare example presupposes that somehow the one available healthcare system will deliver outcomes better than the average possibly attainable outcome under a system that allows multiple choices.
Now imagine MY scenario:
You have two children suffering. One from cancer, the other from tubercolosis.
In one world there is a healthcare system which can treat both diseases but you can only afford the treatment for one. So it allows you to save one child but the other will die.
In the other, you have no choice because it only offers treatment for tubercolosis and not cancer.
How is the latter better than the former? (you’ll say because it spares the parents the pain of choosing, but then I’ll just twist the knife by changing the scenario to say that the latter can cure neither disease)
Clearly your entire argument turns on the universal system actually being able to deliver good outcomes, NOT on the availability of options or lack thereof, and if that ability hinges on the competitiveness/freedom of the system itself then this entire point becomes a matter of determining whether limiting choice doesnt adversely affect the system. You say nothing at all about that.
Although Americans understand what most of the issues are that face the country, they don’t have a clear understanding of what the costs are. That is, in terms of money out of their pockets and how it affects choices that they make on a daily basis. Obviously the candidates don’t do a good job of explaining the costs and don’t dare talk about Americans loosing their freedom of choices. This concern prompted me to write a book on the subject. It is called “Choices.” It describes the issues, talks about the monetary costs and how they affect choices that Americans make on a daily basis. It also describes how many of those choices are either becoming limited or are being taken away. Being number two in the world in ignorance is a shameful commentary. Hopefully, my new book will alleviate some of it.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/641907