The Freedom to Choose

[Guest Manny]

I don't know any leftists that are restricting your ability to choose between Coke and Pepsi or Colgate and Crest.

Damn...

[WLDB]

WTF?

Pepsi or Coke, Colgate or Crest. What's the difference?

Jack Weber, you don't get it. The simple freedom to choose gives power to individuals. Yet, socialists want to create social systems (education, health) that restrict individual choice.

For socialists and leftists, there is only Coke and only Crest. There is no Pepsi, and no Colgate.

So you admire the choice people get to make between two things that are the same? Thats not choice. Its the illusion of choice. If it was the choice between Coke and Root Beer, then there'd be a choice.

Its not just "socialists". All of the parties would restrict education and health choices. They all implement a certain curriculum in schools that all must teach and they all control the health care system.

[August1991]

I offered you an argument, and you instead chose to repeat (again) your assertion.

What did you assert?

When large economic players force out competition is that "choice" ? That's free enterprise.

When social conservatives pressure employers, stores to not offer contraception, how does that enable choice ?

When conservative voices call for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to a man and a woman only, how is that providing more choices ?

In short, when you categorize left-vs-right with your simplistic choice-vs-no-choice label, it makes leftists look like Luddites and misrepresents them at the same time.

MH, did IBM (a large economic player) force out the competition of Apple and Microsoft?

What "social conservative" enforces a cartel to forbid sales of contraceptives?

And "calling" for a constitutional amendment is quite different from getting one passed. By and large, gays are free to live as they want in most civilized countries in the world.

Whereas the Left is typically associated with (for example) State education and State health care (single payer as Americans now call it) and both these examples invariably mean a restriction of individual choice. BTW, education and health care are major features of people's lives.

In short, I don't think that it's a grotesque generalization to argue that the Left wants to restrict individual choice whereas the Right favours the freedom to choose.

[August1991]

So you admire the choice people get to make between two things that are the same? Thats not choice. Its the illusion of choice. If it was the choice between Coke and Root Beer, then there'd be a choice.

WLDB, for all I care, Coke and Pepsi could have an absolutely identical chemical composition. That's not the point. As long as Coke and Pepsi (the organizations) don't form a cartel and collude, then individuals have a choice.

If Coke (the organization) fails to deliver its product on time or in leaky bottles, I can choose Pepsi. Without this critical choice, I'm SOOL. (Google will offer several alternative definitions.)

Believe me, a State where two identical parties are at each other's throats is no "illusion of choice" at all. Their obvious lack of collusion is evidence of genuine choice.

I don't know any leftists that are restricting your ability to choose between Coke and Pepsi or Colgate and Crest.

I was discussing the idea of choice to posters who seem to think that it's an illusion.

Moreover, you're entirely wrong about healthcare, as you have all the choice in the world of where to get your healthcare. We have a SINGLE-PAYER system here in all of the provinces. That doesn't restrict your choice of where to get healthcare; it restricts who is going to pay for it. I already provided you with an argument about why education is government run and even then you have the choice to homeschool or have your children taught at private schools.

Yes, you are free to home-school - but you must continue to pay school taxes. And yes, you are free to choose any doctor - if you can find one willing to see you.

Cybercoma, Canadian parents do not choose the teachers for their children. And increasingly, individual Canadians have lost all control over the health care they receive. We no longer choose our specialists since we take whoever is assigned to us. Most younger Canadians no longer choose a GP since they take whoever they can find.

Edited March 30, 2012 by August1991

[dre]

WTF?

Pepsi or Coke, Colgate or Crest. What's the difference?

Jack Weber, you don't get it. The simple freedom to choose gives power to individuals. Yet, socialists want to create social systems (education, health) that restrict individual choice.

For socialists and leftists, there is only Coke and only Crest. There is no Pepsi, and no Colgate.

Ummmm... Public education and healthcare has actually emerged in market economies, because it turns out to be a good thing for capitalism if people arent sick and stupid.

And theres broad support across the political system for these things in most places that have them.

Show me the conservatives that are campaigning on closing down the public education system?

Edited March 30, 2012 by dre

[August1991]

Might I point out that in our world freedom for one group usually means less freedom for another.

Looking back at this thread, this might be the most terrifying idea.

Manny apparently believes that "freedom" is a limited quantity in the world. If I am "more free", someone elsewhere in the world must be "less free".

IMHO, too many Leftists are zero-sum thinkers and I usually dismiss most on this point alone. When it comes to Leftists, I reserve my respect for those who show that they are not simple-minded zero-sum thinkers. Unfortunately, IME, there are not many Leftists who understand non-zero-sum thinking.

Kevin O'Leary is a Vulture...er Venture Capitalist on the Lang and O'Leary exchange on the dreaded CBC...

Blathers on all the time about "personal freedom"...Thinks the Chinese model is great because if you don't meet the numbers,you get shot!

Ah...The freedom of Chinese authoritarian Capitalism!!!

My point is,that those who hold infantile ideas on individual freedom are many times unwitting pawns in a power and control struggle by those who use that rhetoric to entrench their own power and control...

Without defending Kevin O'Leary, the CBC or the PRC, it seems obvious to me that millions (no, make that hundreds of millions) of ordinary Chinese people have more choices now in their lives because of Deng Xiaoping than they ever did under Mao Tse Tung.

Pinochet? Well, in the grand scheme of things, compare Pinochet and Allende.

Edited March 30, 2012 by August1991

[Jack Weber]

Looking back at this thread, this might be the most terrifying idea.

Manny apparently believes that "freedom" is a limited quantity in the world. If I am "more free", someone elsewhere in the world must be "less free".

IMHO, too many Leftists are zero-sum thinkers and I usually dismiss most on this point alone. When it comes to Leftists, I reserve my respect for those who show that they are not simple-minded zero-sum thinkers. Unfortunately, IME, there are not many Leftists who understand non-zero-sum thinking.

Without defending Kevin O'Leary, the CBC or the PRC, it seems obvious to me that millions (no, make that hundreds of millions) of ordinary Chinese people have more choices now in their lives because of Deng Xiaoping than they ever did under Mao Tse Tung.

Pinochet? Well, in the grand scheme of things, compare Pinochet and Allende.

Yada yada yada...

Capitalism= Freedom and Authoritarian Capitalism (Fascism) is really really cool...

And we'll never know about Allende...Afetr all,he committed suicide ( )

Edited March 30, 2012 by Jack Weber

[GostHacked]

How does individual freedom turn into tyranny?

Between the two, I prefer individual freedom. What about you?

----

I simply admire the thousands of federal NDP members who are free to choose their next leader.

And I am astonished that they advocate a system that forces people to have no choice for a doctor/teacher.

We all want individual freedom. However our leaders and lawmakers are constantly implementing things to undermine that freedom.

You can chose Candidate A, or Candidate B, ..... no matter, they both will sell you out for their own gain first chance they get.

[Michael Hardner]

MH, did IBM (a large economic player) force out the competition of Apple and Microsoft?

Are you trying to say that large forces don't try to reduce competition and control the market ?

What "social conservative" enforces a cartel to forbid sales of contraceptives?

Goalposts moving... I thought this was about choice ?

And "calling" for a constitutional amendment is quite different from getting one passed. By and large, gays are free to live as they want in most civilized countries in the world.

So if somebody fails to achieve a reduction of choice, then it shouldn't be attributed to them ?

"Calling" for communism is quite different from achieving it.

Goalposts continue to move...

Whereas the Left is typically associated with (for example) State education and State health care (single payer as Americans now call it) and both these examples invariably mean a restriction of individual choice. BTW, education and health care are major features of people's lives.

In short, I don't think that it's a grotesque generalization to argue that the Left wants to restrict individual choice whereas the Right favours the freedom to choose.

Grotesque is such a values-laden word that it's meaningless to include it in argument. If we're going to talk generalities, then surely you can be general enough to see that social conservatives want to restrict choice too ?

[Michael Hardner]

Talking about zero sum, why are we only talking about freedom in economic terms ? Does someone who can afford a bigger television but still can't express themselves - does this person have any more freedom ? Isn't the freedom to live one's lifestyle free of harassment worth anything ?

This, to me, is a huge blind spot in this one-dimensional discussion of freedom: the idea that restriction of social choice (marriage, abortion, etc.) is to be ignored in this discussion of freedom.

I feel the most free when I walk around with no wallet in my pocket.

[GostHacked]

Are you trying to say that large forces don't try to reduce competition and control the market ?

IBM is bigger than ever.

What are you running on your IBM clone PC ? Windows or a unix/linux based OS?

Why can you get Apple computers to run Windows?

These three work together to own the whole f'n market. You just think you have a choice.

[Guest Manny]

Yada yada yada...

Capitalism= Freedom and Authoritarian Capitalism (Fascism) is really really cool...

And we'll never know about Allende...Afetr all,he committed suicide ( )

There you go, chappy!

[Michael Hardner]

These three work together to own the whole f'n market. You just think you have a choice.

Why are you addressing me with this ?

[bleeding heart]

In short, I don't think that it's a grotesque generalization to argue that the Left wants to restrict individual choice whereas the Right favours the freedom to choose.

It's a raw and unverified (and unverifiable) generaliztion...grotesque or merely bad, whatever suits.

Pinochet? Well, in the grand scheme of things, compare Pinochet and Allende.

And how grand a scheme of things are the many thousands murdered, tortured, and so on? Or the innumerable political prisoners...is this too "freedom" in August1991 parlance?

As Michael pointed out, "freedom" means a heck of a lot more than right-wing vs. left-wing economics. Surely.

Edited March 31, 2012 by bleeding heart

[August1991]

And how grand a scheme of things are the many thousands murdered, tortured, and so on? Or the innumerable political prisoners...is this too "freedom" in August1991 parlance?

And what about Cambodia?

I have no desire to debate extremism. Was Lenin's Russia worse than Hitler's Germany? Or as an African might ask, thinking of slave ships, why are Europeans so violent?

-----

As Michael pointed out, "freedom" means a heck of a lot more than right-wing vs. left-wing economics. Surely.

Agreed.

But it just seems to me that modern Leftists want to impose a new, progressive form of dictatorship - whereas the modern Right wants to defend simply individual liberty.

Modern Leftists want to restrict individual choice, while they open their leadership to choice. We can choose a leader, but then we have no other choice.

For leftists, the democratic leader chooses for us.

Edited April 1, 2012 by August1991

[bleeding heart]

And what about Cambodia?

What of it? Pol Pot was worse than Pinochet; I eagerly agree.

Therefore you're going to defend Pinochet? As if it must be an either/or formulation?

So much for your derision of zero-sum notions; you're inventing new ones as you go along.

Here's another one, rather more germane to our actual discussion: who was worse, Pinochet or Allende?

Let's use number of killed, "disappeared," imprisoned, silenced and tortured as the crucial marks of delineation....rather than tax-law, or who is allied with whom. (The latter point is the only one that seriously matters to the intellectual sycophants and Commissars; the rest of us can ignore it as irrelevant to the question at hand.)

Pinochet "wins," hands down.

I have no desire to debate extremism.

You're the one who brought up Allende vs. Pinochet.

That is, a hypothetical extremism vs. an objectively-the-case, really-existing one.

A "debate" in which you firmly place your support for the latter.

Agreed.

But it just seems to me that modern Leftists want to impose a new, progressive form of dictatorship - whereas the modern Right wants to defend simply individual liberty.

Your first point, generalization though it is, can at least be argued for or against on its merits. Your second point is boiler-plate, and is demonstrably false. The Right is, and always has been, firmly authoritarian.

Now, there is a sector of the intellectual libertarian right which feels (or at least talks the game) much as you say.

And interestingly, many of them have explicitly allied themselves to the radical Left, as the only other openly anti-authoritarian sector of the political spectrum. I'm thinking Andrew Bacevich, Paul Craig Roberts, and conservative intellectuals of their ilk.

Modern Leftists want to restrict individual choice, while they open their leadership to choice. We can choose a leader, but then we have no other choice.

For leftists, the democratic leader chooses for us.

This is an aspect of democratic representation--period. It's not a "leftist" issue but a mainstream one--and has long been debated and discussed as we all try to navigate complex issues of democratic governance.

Edited April 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Jack Weber]

What of it? Pol Pot was worse than Pinochet; I eagerly agree.

Therefore you're going to defend Pinochet? As if it must be an either/or formulation?

So much for your derision of zero-sum notions; you're inventing new ones as you go along.

Here's another one, rather more germane to our actual discussion: who was worse, Pinochet or Allende?

Let's use number of killed, "disappeared," imprisoned, silenced and tortured as the crucial marks of delineation....rather than tax-law, or who is allied with whom. (The latter point is the only one that seriously matters to the intellectual sycophants and Commissars; the rest of us can ignore it as irrelevant to the question at hand.)

Pinochet "wins," hands down.

You're the one who brought up Allende vs. Pinochet.

That is, a hypothetical extremism vs. an objectively-the-case, really-existing one.

A "debate" in which you firmly place your support for the latter.

Your first point, generalization though it is, can at least be argued for or against on its merits. Your second point is boiler-plate, and is demonstrably false. The Right is, and always has been, firmly authoritarian.

Now, there is a sector of the intellectual libertarian right which feels (or at least talks the game) much as you say.

And interestingly, many of them have explicitly allied themselves to the radical Left, as the only other openly anti-authoritarian sector of the political spectrum. I'm thinking Andrew Bacevich, Paul Craig Roberts, and conservative intellectuals of their ilk.

This is an aspect of democratic representation--period. It's not a "leftist" issue but a mainstream one--and has long been debated and discussed as we all try to navigate complex issues of democratic governance.

That,sir,is a spectacular evisceration...And it lays threadbare,August's simplistic libertarian arguement(I've always found libertarians on the left and right completely infantile!)...

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Kudos...

Edited April 1, 2012 by Jack Weber

[WLDB]

For leftists, the democratic leader chooses for us.

No, thats for everyone regardless of where they are on the spectrum. Its part of representative democracy. You elect an MP, the MP makes votes on your behalf while in office.

[August1991]

What of it? Pol Pot was worse than Pinochet; I eagerly agree.

Therefore you're going to defend Pinochet? As if it must be an either/or formulation?

So much for your derision of zero-sum notions; you're inventing new ones as you go along.

Here's another one, rather more germane to our actual discussion: who was worse, Pinochet or Allende?

That's a good question: Who was worse, Pinochet or Allende?

IMHO, people in civilized societies are never forced to choose between such extremes - because in a true democracy, people are free to choose.

-----

Under Allende, would all Chileans have been free to choose? For example, were they as free as Swedes, Finns and Norwegians?

Edited April 7, 2012 by August1991

[jacee]

I don't get your focus on teachers and doctors.

Canadians have chosen to provide education and health care collectively, so that everyone gets good care and education. You are free to choose your doctor, within the limits of availability, and free to purchase any specialized services you wish available anywhere in the world that you can afford.

Likewise education, you choose your school by where you choose to live, or you purchase private education.

I really don't see a serious limitation in choice, and our universal public services are excellent quality. What is it you want that you can't currently get?

What I think you really mean is that you don't want to contribute taxes to anyone else's education or healthcare.

So just say that, instead of trying to wrap it up as some political issue.

I get it ... you're an 'Every man for himself' libertarian kinda guy.

Unfortunately, you live in Canada where we concern ourselves with the overall health and wellbeing of our society because we recognize that an educated and healthy work force benefits the whole economy and makes it possible for us to also care for those unable to provide for themselves.

We recognize that no one becomes successful all on their own, but because of the services and supports that provide opportunities for every individual to thrive and progress.

Of course, if one wishes to live in a more libertarian regime where basic health care is the privilege of the monied classes, one only has to drive a couple of hours south.

Edited April 7, 2012 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Under Allende, would all Chileans have been free to choose?

Under Allende, they could protest, strike, speak out... and vote. That's the essence of choice.

Pinochet was a dictator, who imprisoned tortured and killed citizens. Not much choice there.

Also: We're still ignoring the idea of social choice... mostly because we're in the area of "not grotesque generalizations" about left and right, in which we're supposed to indulge your view of the left not providing choice because... well... just because...

[Guest Manny]

Yes in fact my good friend Absolon is from Chile, an he told me that Pinochet was put in power by the influence of the United States. The CIA helped Pinochet. They assassinated leaders who were democratically elected, in South America. There was no choice for Chileans.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes in fact my good friend Absolon is from Chile, an he told me that Pinochet was put in power by the influence of the United States. The CIA helped Pinochet. They assassinated leaders who were democratically elected, in South America. There was no choice for Chileans.

In the US, you see, there is so much choice that they can even choose leaders of other countries in the world: Chile, the Philliplines, Iraq, Afghanistan.

[cybercoma]

In the US, you see, there is so much choice that they can even choose leaders of other countries in the world: Chile, the Philliplines, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Post of the week.

[Jack Weber]

In the US, you see, there is so much choice that they can even choose leaders of other countries in the world: Chile, the Philliplines, Iraq, Afghanistan.

It's worse than that Mike...That's just scratching the surface...

Let's play cards!

http://friendlydictators.blogspot.ca/