On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:08:17 Jim Elwell wrote: >At 13 November 2002, 09:27 PM, Ma Be wrote: >>** ... But 'maximization of individual freedom(s)' may entail compromises >>that warrant restricting somewhat *complete* freedom as preached by >>"orthodox" free market forces. > >If you believe this, Marcus, then we have no further for for further >discussion of the matter. It is logically inconsistent to claim that one >can "maximize individual freedom" while restricting the same. > No, it's not. Please allow me to explain why. It's actually simple. 'Individual freedom' is a concept that can be seen as having *degrees*, i.e. it can include more or less "liberties". *TOTAL* individual freedom is an unattainable objective! Please think for a moment for example on the following popular saying: a person's freedom ends where somebody else's starts!!! Also, please consider that one may not need to have *total* freedom to be happy with a certain level of individual freedom!
Having said all that, when the objective of '*maximizing* individual freedom' is sought one is actually trying to achieve the highest possible degree of freedom AND satisfaction with it that would render both individuals and societies happy! In actual fact one could even say that foregoing *certain* freedoms may actually enhance people's satisfaction with their level of individual freedom. In other words, it wouldn't pay to have a "marginal increase" in freedom with, say, the power to kill, if that would bring significant negative consequences to the point that this person's 'individual freedom' is in the end actually jeopardized or *diminished* or of an *inferior* satisfaction level than with it!!! I hope this makes more sense now. >You can perhaps argue that maximum individual freedom in a market is not >the best way to approach metrication, etc., but you cannot, in my opinion, >rationally claim that you restrict freedom to maximize freedom. > Please see my argumentation above. You were unfortunately caught by the "play of words". 'Restricting *certain* freedoms' may, therefore, have the effect of *maximizing* freedom and satisfaction at that particular level. >Surely I am not understanding you, right? >... After what I wrote above I hope you will. If not I'll give you another theoretical "hint" to what I'm alluding to, the "utils theory", i.e. that curve that depicts what satisfies people. The more utils the more satisfaction, *BUT* what satisfies some may NOT satisfy others, i.e. this is not a "more" game meaning "better" in the sense of *number* of items in your possession. But of *quality* of things that would give people more "utils" of satisfaction!!! These are similar concepts to what I was trying to convey here. Putting it another way then, to wrap this up. It's not in the individual's best interest to ADD one more marginal freedom (like killing) if that "addition" would mean an *actual DECREASE* in the *qualitative* amount of his/her freedom! So, when we're *measuring* 'individual freedom' we're actually NOT *counting* **number of individual freedoms**, but the "util" of candidate freedom aspects we're potentially trying to add! Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
