fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (10/03/86)
In the second part of his attack on libertarianism, Richard Cowan makes a common mistake: he confuses "freedom" with "ability". He writes: > We live in a political world dominated by economic arrangements > among powerful institutions. Eliminating many government powers > might give us certain new freedoms, but would have no effect, or the > wrong effect, on the limits on free choice imposed upon us by > institutions. This is an interesting choice of words. When an institution starts to sell a product and then removes it from the market, are they *imposing* a limit on our free choice? When a worker accepts a job in a factory and then later withholds his services in hopes of getting better wages, is he *imposing* a limit on the free choice of his employer? If I were to embrace celibacy, would I be *imposing* a limit on the free choice of women seeking mates? Such an interpretation is, of course, possible, but seems to me unsatisfactory. It seems far more reasonable to say that the person or institution concerned is justly exercising their rights as a (collection of) free human beings. And even if Richard's definition of "imposing" is accepted, what follows? Are we worse off by these "impositions"? Have we been harmed? Richard seems to imply that if an economic institution fails to provided us with a certain good or service, our free choice has been impinged upon and we have been harmed. But this is nonsense! If I were to become your devoted slave, Rich, you would unquestionably be better off. Does this mean that your free choice, your right to choose among devoted slaves, has been infringed? Are you worse off *because* I haven't become your devoted slave? I think not. I would point out to Rich that freedom to choose does not mean the ability to choose. It means the freedom to choose from what others freely wish to part with. I do *not* think this means that these others are imposing limits on our freedom of choice, and I am certain that they are not violating our basic, natural rights as human beings by doing so. On the contrary, they are affirming them. > ... large scale > capitalism largely thrives on the indoctrination of consumers to > make the "right choice," ... This is Galbraithian arrogance; "most consumers purchase goods because they're indoctrinated (not me, of course), I'm smart enough to perceive this and moral enough to want to do something about it", etc. etc. First of all, this assertion is highly dubious: there is no evidence whatsoever for corporations being able to manipulate consumer demand in any meaningful way. If it were true, why don't all smart people like Rich put every cent they own into "large" corporations' stock, and retire early? I mean, they can manipulate consumer demand easily, right? That's how large-scale capitalism thrives, right? But even if consumer's are positively Pavlovian in their behavior, what right do you or anyone else have to coercively intervene, in the absence of force or fraud? Are you smarter than they are? Are you better-intentioned, with purer motives? > Companies frequently bring in innovations designed to induce > "economic growth" by making the consumer dependent on various modern > conveniences. Dependent in what sense? Required for survival? Would require huge disruption in lifestyle to do without? Would require financial sacrifice to do without? Would hurt only a little if done without? Which kind of dependencies can corporations induce? Has every innovation ever attempted been slavishly accepted by our poor addicted consumer? How about beer shampoo? JOLT Cola, (with twice the caffeine)? Breath spray for dogs? Why aren't these things the latest craze? Seems to me that corporations put new stuff on the market with hope, not certainity. This kind of reasoning has all the trademarks of Jeanne Dixon's astrological predictions. If she's wrong, noone will remember, if she's right we think it incredible. Similarly, if a corporation introduces a new product that fails badly, we forget it, but if it succeeds (like toothpaste in a pump) Rich tells us that we're being "manipulated". Jeez, Rich, what stops them from giving us toothpaste in a bag? > A dependency on toothpaste in a pump is being created (by subsidy at > first) so that consumers will ultimately pay for the added cost of > the pump, and in order to better regulate (and speed up) their > toothpaste use. When toothpaste in a tube is removed from the > market because most consumers have been indoctrinated (progress!) to > buy it in a pump, what happens to my "free choice" to buy > toothpaste in a tube? If A pays B for a good or service, and later B stops providing it or provides something else, what happens to A's "free choice" to buy that good from B? I would say that he never had such a choice to begin with; only that he had the free choice to buy whatever B wished to sell. > The free market, using the technical apparatus of the media, has > infringed on my freedom. Can A make the same complaint? And should he be compensated at B's expense? If so, why? Suppose A and B are not individuals but institutions? Does this make any difference? If so, why? By the way, it's interesting to note that you wouldn't have known that your freedom was "infringed" at all were it not for the free market; that is, it is the mechanisms of the marketplace that make toothpaste in a tube possible. Rich, could you explain to me again how companies that decide to no longer provide a product you like are infringing upon your freedom? By failing to perform an action, have they made you worse off? Or have they simply exercised their rights as a collection of human beings? Let's turn the tables. Let's say I enjoy reading your postings in polisci enough to pay you for them. Two months later, for some reason, you decide to stop. Have you infringed on my freedom? Have my rights been violated? > Now I don't suggest we start a movement to guard the right to buy > toothpaste in a tube, but I do suggest that there is a danger to > freedom posed by economic interests manipulating our needs, given > the level of technical organization and coordination of modern > society. There is a far greater danger posed by social reformers who would seek to prevent human beings and their economic institutions from deciding on their own what they wish to sell and under what terms. --Barry -------