At 14 November 2002, 07:03 PM, Ma Be wrote:
...'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!No disagreement with that. The last sentence obviously only applies to certain people.
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!Speak for yourself. To some of us, the highest possible degree of individual freedom (commensurate with others having the same) ***IS*** what brings the greatest satisfaction.
Also, "society" cannot have freedom or rights or be happy, only individuals can. It is nonsensical to talk about "society" being happy.
In actual fact one could even say that foregoing *certain* freedoms may actually enhance people's satisfaction with their level of individual freedom.The flaw here, of course, is that this applies to only some people. Which ones? Who is to decide?
I stand by my earlier statement: it is logically impossible to INCREASE freedom while ADDING restrictions. For a single individual, this is absolutely true. You can argue that some (misguided) individuals would be less "satisfied" with more freedom, but you cannot logically argue that adding restrictions increases their freedom.
Forcing "rational" package sizes onto a manufacturer is restricting their freedom to use their property as they choose. Kind of like if I told you to plant daisies in your yard, and if you chose to plant mums instead, I'm going to take your land and kick you out into the street.
Is it really "your" property if I have the power to do that?
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.
Clear as mud. You seem to be confusing "satisfaction" with "freedom."
Regards, Jim
