Freedom of Choice
(A prologue, then a delay)
“Freedom
of choice means that the person is able to choose his own course of action and
his own pattern of living, subject to the requirement that he shall not act so
as to violate the freedom of choice of others.”
Kemp, A.(1960, February) Freedom of Choice, The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-choice/
Freedom.
How many times is this word used to justify competing ideas? How often is it
used to rationalize a political or economic policy stance? We often see
“Freedom to/from (insert perceived “right” here)” in some form or another on
placards in demonstrations or on the infotainment channels. In the United
States of ‘Merica, the word “Freedom” has a special place in our cultural
identity. I’d like to explore this word as a means of exploring another
subject. I’m (slowly) studying Economics in an attempt to understand the
Free-Market, Socialism, fiscal policy, and all of the related ideas that push
humanity’s decisions of how to use its resources (that’s a little redundant,
but not egregiously I hope).
Back to
“FREEDOM!!!”:
Waaayyyy
back in nineteen eighty-something, I was watching the Saturday morning
cartoons. Some of us are old enough to remember those. Smurfs, Snorks, GoBots,
etc. Anyway, on CBS(?) there was an animated-short that tried to explain and
differentiate Freedom From and Freedom To. To summarize: a kid got
angry because he wasn’t allowed to do what he wanted, so he was taken to a pretend
environment where he was shown how horrible the world would be if everyone
could do whatever they wanted to without restriction (Freedom To). The explanation provided was that living in a world
that provided Freedom From is much
better because we don’t get hurt. Freedom from hunger, pain, emotional
distress, etc, is the benefit of having restrictions placed on us by an outside
entity (Big Brother, government, parents, school officials, The Boss, etc). The
message implied that in a world of utter, complete freedom of action, we’d be
under constant threat of attack.
I’ve
never liked that explanation. It never rang true to me in an absolute sense. Of
course the world doesn’t care much for absolutes (except when it’s politically
expedient leading up to an election), but concepts are often presented as such
for simplicity of articulation and comprehension. It seemed to me that Freedom To was better, and that people
aren’t so horrible as to attack each other simply because they can. If that
were true, wouldn’t we experience that now? Government can only provide a
limited protection to the individual, and has no legal responsibility to do so
(numerous SCOTUS decisions have reinforced that the government has no constitutional duty to
defend individuals), so why don’t we live in borderline chaos? It seems to me
that most people are capable of refraining from acting on destructive impulses
as a result of enlightened self-interest. Freedom
From simply gives someone else domain over us, the products of our efforts,
how we use our resources, how we dress, where we live… It’d be like living under an authoritarian
monarch again, perhaps worse. People are, for the most part, able to make good
decisions, so why not let them? Expand Freedom
To as much as possible, with resources in-place to manage those relatively
few instances of self-interest not being very enlightened, and then get out of
the way.
Well, it
seems that not everyone wants that. It’s messy. It doesn’t give us what we
need, just the ability to get what we need for ourselves. It doesn’t benefit
the individual by providing basic needs. Freedom
To live the way we want is awesome, when you have the motivation to sow
your own fields and don’t like being dependent on others. You want to spend
your life writing poetry and painting? You want to sit around your 3rd
floor apartment contemplating Existentialist Philosophy, and consider that a
positive contribution to humanity? Then someone else has to provide food,
shelter, utilities, clothing, and your mocha latte, and that’s your right,
right? I know that I just took a step down a Slippery Slope, but it’s for a
reason. I clumsily dance on the edge of a slippery slope constantly, as you’ve
seen, and will continue to see. Again, back on track: Many people see Freedom From as being vital. Freedom From hunger, pain, discomfort
(emotional and physical), is seen as a fundamental human right. “We have
achieved a height of civilization that allows for this, so why wouldn’t we?”. Freedom To is seen as too dangerous. It
forces you to work, or starve. Again, a somewhat-slippery slope, but what
happens, in an utterly-free-market, if you don’t work and nobody else takes
responsibility for you? You starve. I’m including theft as a form of work in
this.
Freedom
of Choice is the title of this post. Where does that fit into a discussion of Freedom To versus Freedom From? From my perspective, it’s the other way around. Freedom From and Freedom To have to be understood in order to understand the
inherent responsibilities of Freedom of Choice. I’m exploring this because
Freedom of Choice is likely what I consider to be the most important subject a
human being can contemplate. Religion is a bit too abstract, but overlaps
Freedom of Choice. Freedom of Choice underpins our economics, politics…every
aspect of our day-to-day lives.
For the
sake of this piece, I’d like to illustrate Freedom of Choice on a
one-dimensional spectrum. I’ll differentiate the extremes as Freedom From and Freedom To. I recognize and admit that this is a dramatic
over-simplification, but it suits a purpose here. The more Freedom From, the less Freedom of Choice. The more Freedom To, the more Freedom of Choice. Some
would argue that more Freedom From
allows for more Freedom of Choice; I’ll argue against this. In order to achieve
a high level of Freedom From, it is
necessary to vest a significant portion of your otherwise-individual liberty in
a centralized authority. This centralized authority then makes decisions FOR
you, as they feel is necessary in order to provide for a more orderly (and thus
secure) society. You may no longer choose what to wear or eat; the central
authority may have determined that blue cloth is needed in the public sector
market, and removes it from the private sector. They may determine that too
many green beans cause cancer, and thus remove them from availability. Whenever
you vest your decision-making with another party, you surrender your ability to
choose how you will live to a varying degree.
The other
side of the spectrum, Freedom To,
allows more Freedom of Choice, but carries its own risks. Freedom To choose what to wear and eat means you have the Freedom To make atrocious decisions. You
become responsible for achieving some volume of necessary tasks on a day-to-day
basis. Delivering postage, defending your nation (or not, as you see fit),
choosing healthy foods (or not, as you see fit), working (or not…), and thus
having food and shelter (or not…). It becomes incumbent on YOU, the individual,
to conduct research into what the nutritional value of a food is, if a
medication has adverse side-effects (the research into which may prove fatal
for you, or worse), if an insect from China, brought across in a shipment of
wood furniture, may devastate soy crops, etc. And, of course, the broad range
of possibilities in between the two extremes provide various levels of risk and
protection, with related levels of Freedom of Choice
So what the heck IS Freedom of
Choice, and why is it important? Why do some people choose to hand their
choices over to another entity, while others (like me) want to take
responsibility for our own destiny (if that’s even possible, or are we stuck in
predestination? That gets into theology, and I don’t want to wander down THAT
road at the moment), and why does this lead to conflict?
“A freedom-of-choice society in the economic
sphere is a market society. Individual economic transactions are conducted
through the voluntary cooperation of reasonably well-informed persons in such
a way that both parties benefit from them. A free-choice society provides a
mechanism for bringing about coordination with a minimum of coercion. Human
activities, so far as possible, are conducted in the market, not in the
political sphere. In this way coercion of individual persons to conform is
minimized and freedom of individual choice is maximized. Each person can choose
the color of tie he wants, the architecture of his house, and the cut of his
clothes. He does not have to submit to what the majority wants; he may make his
own choice and get it.
This is, of
course, exactly the opposite from that organization of society where decisions
which could be made by the market are made on a political yes or no basis. Even
if these decisions are reached by the expedient of democratic majority rule
(which may be transitory) rather than by dictatorial fiat, the political
decisions are the results of group pressures instead of individual choices.”
Kemp,
A.(1960, February) Freedom of Choice, The
Journal of the American Medical Association. Retrieved from
https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-choice/
It seems another term needs to be
defined also: “Economics”.
To simplify, for the sake of this
specific exploratory piece, let’s say that Economics is about decision-making.
Deciding what we want to do with resources, be it time, energy, food, money, housing,
love, whatever. I realize that my usage is stretching some aspects of the
concept, so I’m going to request indulgence in some…’artistic license’?
So, “Freedom of Choice”. “Freedom”.
Individual sovereignty. “Freedom To” would then be the ability to decide how
one is going to utilize one’s own resources, rather than the decision being
made for them by a third party or outside agency. Or…
Some people define “Freedom” as “Freedom From”, meaning they are not
constrained, inhibited, restricted by, or subjected to some limitation. They
see it as preferable for an agency (government) to provide for them in order
for them to be “free” to use their time in pursuits other than those necessary
for the sustainment of life. They are unconstrained by the mundane necessities
of living and may follow so-called “higher” pursuits. This becomes possible in
a relatively wealthy society in which sufficient resources exist as to provide
for such a lifestyle. This economic state is often (normally?) referred to as
“Socialism” to some extent or other. In such a State (capital S), a central authority (government)
makes economic decisions with the claimed intent of efficiently affecting resource
distribution and providing for the individuals’ wellbeing. Since Economics has
already been brought into this, I could go down the rabbit hole of “Market
Failure vs Government Failure” and the inherent inefficiency of government, but I won’t.
As already discussed with the part
about the spectrum of possibilities between Freedom
To and Freedom From, this concept
runs a wide gamut. There isn’t just a Free-Market OR complete-Socialism/Communism;
there are infinite combinations possible. Any State with a somewhat-organized
government experiences some socialism, to some extent, if only minimal. Every
government provides some level of services on behalf of its citizens, be it
postal services, national defense, or garbage collection, there is ALWAYS some
socialized service provided. These services can easily be considered a “Freedom
From”. The citizens (or subjects, as you wish) are freed from the
responsibility to carry their postage to its recipient on their own, disposing
of their own garbage, or defending their country if invaded. This is how I
envision “Freedom From”. In an
exceptionally general sense, it is freedom from responsibility. That sounds
bad, on the surface. It sounds like the citizens in that society have no
personal responsibility for anything and may behave as they please with no
repercussions. THAT is not what I mean. I mean they are free from certain daily
responsibilities, and thus are able to focus their personal resources on more
productive ventures. Instead of traveling across the country to check on their
mom’s welfare, they just send a letter, carried by a government agency (welcome
to the 21st century, Rick. We send e-mail now). Instead of worrying
about foreign invasion, and using some of their resources for defense, there is
an organized (ish) agency dedicated to that, with a higher level of training
and significantly more resources than an individual is able to muster.
Even this runs along a spectrum.
Some government provide a minimum of services, while others have attempted to
completely centralize all decision-making with regards to resources of every
kind. The terms I recall from high school were “Mixed-socialist economy” on one
end, and “Damn Commie Scum” on the other. Ok, that wasn’t the OFFICIAL term,
but I didn’t want to use expletives, so I paraphrased. It was the Cold War; what can I say!
Wow, I really go off on tangents,
don’t I! I’m trying to achieve and provide some comprehension of what’s
involved in the concept of Freedom of Choice. It has slightly different
meanings for each person contemplating it, and manifests a little differently
for each individual in each circumstance they find themselves in. We could dive
into the HIGHLY-political venue of “Freedom” and start talking about how many
people seem to believe that anyone they disagree with shouldn’t be free to
express themselves because it is a violation of their “Freedom From” discomfort, but then we’ll get inescapably lost in
the weeds.
Now that I’ve muddied the waters
quite a bit, I’ll try to expedite the completion of this piece. The plethora of
research on the subject of “Freedom”, in its various incarnations, is
expansive. Intimidatingly expansive. Run a quick search in whatever search
engine you prefer, and you’ll rapidly end up down a rabbit hole trying to
follow every branch of possibilities. I want to limit this to a minuscule
aspect of the subject, while still referencing other aspects of it.
Freedom of Choice. An individual’s
liberty to exercise dominion over their resources relatively-free FROM interference or third-party administration.
This concept, as I’ve indicated, is of exceptional importance to me. From my
perspective, it is a fundamental aspect of our humanity. Without it, we become
less than fully human. With Freedom of Choice, though, comes responsibility.
This is inescapable. Every choice has consequences. They may be dodged
temporarily, they may be deflected onto someone else for the short-term (as I
hypothesize occurring with high levels of economic socialization), but the
residual effects of our decisions ALWAYS come back on us. They may be good, as
with selfless sacrifice and the resulting social esteem, or they may be bad, as
with poor health from bad diet and lack of physical activity. Many people
typically desire a high level of individual sovereignty and a low level of consequence.
I’m of the belief that this is impossible. There are ALWAYS consequences.
This
appears to be THE defining aspect of what many people call “maturity”,
“adulthood”, whatever term is used. Children want to be able to act on
impulses, let emotion dictate their actions and reactions, and not experience
the resulting effect. Adults accept that they must restrain themselves. An
adult recognizes that there are second-order effects and unintended
consequences. “I may grow old, but I’ll never grow up” is a related rallying cry,
used by the Peter Pans who perceive childhood impulsiveness as the high point
of their lives. When they inevitably reproduce, they justify their lack of active
parenting with “let children be children”. They allow their children to be
“free”, taking a hands-off approach with the excuse that their children will
“grow out of it” and “it’s only a phase” (as though children don’t need
guidance. Adult maturity is somehow genetically programmed into humanity and
will spontaneously occur at a predetermined age, like an iOS update). There’s
no recognition of the need for children to be TAUGHT how to be an adult. One
certainly doesn’t hold a child to adult standards, but one should teach
children what will be expected of them when they achieve adulthood, and how to
meet those standards, which would lead to…
Enlightened
self-interest. This term has been used by various economists, among others, in
describing an optimal state. If everyone were capable of engaging each other
with enlightened self-interest, they would consider long-term effects when
interacting with others, and we could experience a high level of individual
liberty with a correspondingly-low level of governmental interference. Laws
would be minimal; the concept of a “Social Contract” would be unnecessary.
Freedom of Choice would not be up for debate because there wouldn’t be any
reason to limit it. My beloved Freedom of Choice, acceptance of responsibility,
and “keep your hands off my resources, I’m an adult and can make my own
freaking decisions, thank you” would be more than abstract concepts,
contemplated by philosophers and social scientists. “Gee, wouldn’t the world be
a great place if…?”. Even under those circumstances, some minimal level of
economic socialization seems to be of benefit. Even if every member of the
human race was capable of acting from a cultivated perspective, we don’t know
everything, and circumstances are not always within our control. Trees fall on
roofs; ice patches aren’t always visible on the roads; teeth get cracks and
require root canals (I’m not looking forward to that. A root canal costs HOW
MUCH? And Blue Cross doesn’t cover it? Oh well). And so some level of
socialized risk provides benefits. This detracts from our Freedom of Choice,
and bugs the heck out of me. Yes, I can acknowledge the benefit of something
while still hating it. That’s part of being an adult. I think. Or maybe I’m
being delusional. I don’t know. But, taking into account rain-induced,
Biblical-type flooding requiring government intervention on some level, if
minimal, and similar ideas, humanity is still capable of a high level of
individual sovereignty, and could exercise it with a savvy approach that
considers potential repercussions.
Some groups believe that there is
no true Freedom of Choice. They believe that we are subjected to various forms
of divine predestination. This absolves them of responsibility for their
decisions because they HAD no choice in the first place; their decisions were
pre-planned by an all-powerful entity that allows for no individual
sovereignty. I find this position unpalatable. Maybe The Universe, God,
destiny, whatever, has decided that I would have an affinity for individual
Freedom of Choice. As such, I would be a contradiction. No matter, I dislike
the idea that my decisions don’t matter. I accept responsibility for my
actions, and prefer to believe that what I choose is what affects the direction
of my life, subject to unknowns and spontaneous events that derail plans. I
also believe in coincidence. I believe that a congruence of unavoidable and
UNKNOWABLE circumstances with our personal decisions allows for what we refer
to as coincidence. The result can be catastrophic to our plans, but that
doesn’t mean it was predetermined by an omniscient entity. Even within
religion, God is supposed to have given humans the ability to make our own
decisions. If we weren’t given that ability, why would there be consequences?
Wouldn’t the universe simply be a story, already written and thus unchangeable?
How could we “change our ways”? Anyone who was not spiritually “saved” would
thus be stuck in their part of the story, unable to manifest any command over
the direction of their life, and thus efforts to “save” them would be simply
playing to a script and have no inherent value. Any decision we make would be
devoid of value as we would, again, simply be following programming, with no
say in how we eat, brush out teeth, speak, etc. I am unable to perceive this as
legitimate. I’m going to ignore this entire branch of thinking for the sake of
my own investigations.
Again with the tangential
wandering, and back on-track (sort of)…
How do we keep our Freedom of
Choice, optimize it on the macro-scale, and do our best to maintain its viability
through future generations? This requires the “enlightened” part of
“enlightened self-interest”. Without enlightenment, self-interest devolves into
the worst parts of Lord of the Flies and we end up with the road the United
States occasionally sees. ENRON, AIG, and the “Snowflake” generation saying “we
can do what we want and shouldn’t have to experience any consequences”.
Adorable concept, but it doesn’t play-out in real life. Instead, all of society
pays the price, and our Freedom of Choice becomes restricted in order to
minimize those effects. To avoid that, we need to set baseline values of right
and wrong, deriving them from a contemplation of consequences and recognition
of their long-term constructive effects. Every religion has some variation,
then expands on them for their own purposes. I’ll summarize them all as “Be
Respectful”. They can be broken down further with “Don’t Murder”, “Don’t
Steal”, etc, but I believe they all fall under “Be Respectful”. Recognize that
considering long-term effects may reduce short-term profit, but is what’s best
for the individual, the species, and The Universe. Economic growth may slow
down, and financial wealth may not grow to the same extent, but humanity will
benefit with higher quality work output and better resource utilization without
necessitating inefficient centralized decision-making, and longevity and
sustainment of resources. Think about the secondary effects of your decisions
before acting. Don’t act on impulse. Be mindful of your words and actions.
“Mindful” and “Respect”. I’m starting to sound Buddhist. Teach your children to
do the same. At early ages, this requires simple messages, and maybe a swat on
the butt to show immediate consequence. A 4 year-old doesn’t comprehend how
disrespectful behavior has a negative impact over the long-term, so they
require instant feedback. Then transition to discussing their decisions with
them. One story I read had a father engaging in “tea parties” with his young
daughter while she played the part of a “Princess”. He used it as an
opportunity to discuss the affairs of the make-believe kingdom and talk-through
potential actions with her. This taught her how to consider the effects of her
choices on others and over the long-term. Don’t “Just let kids be kids”, but
engage them pro-actively with age-appropriate conversations about why people
behave the way they do, and how cause-and-effect will influence their own
lives.
In order to maintain some level of
“FRRREEEEEDDDDOOMMMMM!”,
we need to ensure that it is used wisely. Corporate executives using federal
bail-outs to cushion decision-making that’s driven by short-term profits and
stock values is not sustainable (See Minsky Paradox ), and results in more laws restricting and centralizing
decision-making. That’s a large-scale example, but it is scalable down to the
individual also. The more we see poor decision-making by individual citizens,
the more we see laws and policies restricting individual sovereignty in order
to mitigate the risk otherwise absorbed by society at-large.
A prosperous society is benefited
by people being left alone to make their own decisions, having been provided
with, or sought-out, relevant education on their current subject-at-hand. This
necessitates a level of Mindfulness (Enlightenment) that must be taught. It is
NOT an inherent aspect of our existence. Be a pro-active, mindful parent and/or
role-model. Set the example. That isn’t easy, but it IS worth it. Be the
example for your peers! When they see you stepping-up and doing “the right
thing”, they’re more likely to follow your lead. Educate yourself in how to
best use your own resources for their longevity and efficient utilization.
Teach. Inspire. Learn. Consider. Be
Respectful. Be Mindful. It’s amazingly easy, and intimidatingly difficult. It’s
also vital to our individual well-being and that of humanity as a whole. Are
you thinking about your great-great-grandchildren’s well-being, or just how
your children are doing right this moment, or only about how you can buy that
new car because yours is out-of-style? Are you considering acting on an angry
impulse and demonstrating against a political position by blocking traffic on
an interstate highway, or by calling an elected representative and letting them
know how you feel with reasoned discourse? Which is juvenile, and which has the
best long-term effect?
Enlightened decisions take time.
They require contemplation, education, and consideration (I hope that isn’t as
redundant as I think it might be). Humanity wants a decision RIGHT FREAKING
NOW!! Sometimes it’s necessary to make a quick decision, but often it isn’t.
When it isn’t a requirement of continued existence, slow down. Don’t be
lasagna. That isn’t as exciting, as thrilling, as the drama that would
otherwise occur, but it sure makes for a longer, healthier life.
Everything we do as individuals is
small. I’m not so delusional as to think I’m going to change the world, and I
don’t think I’m so amazingly important as to warrant global recognition. I do,
however, think that we can each make small changes for the better, and that
those changes add up significantly. If we are able to change our culture for
the better, all of humanity benefits. That is one of my core beliefs that helps
motivate me. In trying MY best to act on the “Enlightened” part of the
equation, I hope to inspire others, who will, in-turn, do the same. I hope that
the effect will multiply down the road, through the generations, and there will
be a strong respect for Freedom To
and Freedom of Choice balanced with a similar respect for others’ rights. This
will improve quality of life for everyone, while maximizing the application of
“Freedom” in all of its incarnations.
I call this a “prologue” because it
is an attempt for me to articulate thoughts regarding my ongoing exploration of
economic socialization. My hypothesis is that a high level of socialization of
risk, and resulting individualization of profit, is unsustainable and promotes
short-term, hasty behavior on the part of individual citizens, resulting in
further inefficiency and misappropriation of resources toward non- constructive
members of society. I’ve already altered my stance a smidge by finding that
some level of economic socialization IS beneficial, but there appears to be a
healthy balance of socialized-risk and individualized-risk. Now I’m lead to
believe that the U.S. has swung too far into the socialized side and my
hypothesis applies, but not in the manner I originally believed. I said "...and a delay" because this specific line of research is going to take a long time.
As my qualification indicates: this
blog is derived partially from ignorance. It is part of my attempt to relieve
my ignorance. Writing-out my thoughts helps me understand them better, and lets
me more effectively direct my research efforts. I’ll see how that goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment