On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:28:00 Jim Elwell wrote: ... 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. > Sure, some people may disagree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that what one think may differ from what is!... ;-)
>>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. > Again, no, this is not a matter of 'speaking for (myself)', but of defining scientificly what and how to define a parameter under study. True, measures of *individual* satisfaction would vary from person to person, but in order to study this from a *society's* perspective one must approach this from an *aggregate* point-of-view, individual considerations factored in *as much as humanly possible*, of course! >Also, "society" cannot have freedom or rights or be happy, only individuals >can. It is nonsensical to talk about "society" being happy. > ? Not sure I followed you, perhaps my sentence above will help clarify what I meant. Besides, a society is a collective of individuals... >>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? > The concept of 'utils', Jim, is a *very well established principle* in studying human factors. And if one is to study its effects *on an entire society* there is actually no choice but to consider aggregate factors. >I stand by my earlier statement: it is logically impossible to INCREASE >freedom while ADDING restrictions. No, it's not, Jim (as much as you still want to insist it's not). But I respect your *personal* desire and view that YOUR "utils" curve be one of + number = + freedom in absolute terms, if you like. Please, let me try to explain, once again. Human beings are very complex subjects. When God created us He did it according to His own image. In His view, His creatures would (or should) NOT be happy by having "too much freedom". So, in essence, the increase in *number* of certain freedoms (like in my example of freedom to kill) may NOT translate into 'maximizing people's freedom', but 'restricting' certain particular ones would! In His wisdom God knew that the human race should not be *totally* free to do *absolutely WHATEVER* it pleased him/her, hence He gave us His 10 commandments to drive that point home clearly. He saw in His infinite wisdom that violating certain principles would only harm us. The apostle Paul makes a very important statement in Scriptures to illustrate this principle when he said: "all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" 1 Co. 6 :12. Unfortunately Adam & Eve learned that lesson the hard way and thought they could have the fruit and 'maximize their personal freedom'. Had they *restricted* themselves from that hideous fruit and we would certainly not be discussing metrication here today... :-) > 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. > Well, I hope the above examples help you understand better where I'm coming from. On the other hand I read you and respect that you, personally (or many others who may share in your 'utils curve'), may be someone to which this may not apply by your own choice. >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. > He, he... You're evidently overreacting. Again, my challenge continues, Jim. Please prove to us why one would *absolutely* HAVE TO use stupid sizes like 341 mL, 454 g? If others in metric countries use rational sizes why can't an ifp producer? There is *plenty* of choices for you to pick from the list, choose 400 or 500, whatever. Why behave like a spoiled brat? ... >>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." >... Not really, Jim. As I already stated earlier, the concept of utils is a very well established management science tool to study human freedoms and satisfaction level. Freedom and satisfaction go hand in hand. I cannot in sane conscience dissociate one from the other, even though I recognize that they're of different nature. In other words I cannot talk about 'maximizing freedom' *without* associating it with satisfaction in getting it. Just like I think *you* would NOT, even in your *own* "equation", tell me that your 'maximum freedom' would NOT be the level at which you'd have your 'maximum (personal) satisfaction'! ;-) In other words, the util thing IS a legitimate tool to maximize my objective function, 'freedom'. Regards, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
