Choice, Limited Choice, and Not Choosing Limited Choice

If one is familiar with Milton Friedman one is likely familiar with his mantra of “free to choose”. You may well be familiar with his book and subsequent PBS series of the same title Free to Choose. (1) (2)

If one is -or- is not familiar with Milton Friedman, the following is an observation of one of his core views for the unfamiliar, and an excellent reference for the familiar:

“Friedman’s core view of economics and matters of economic policy was fully developed by the time he undertook the massive of his monetary history of the United States. Nevertheless, the events recounted in a key part of that work, his horror story of the Great Contraction , strengthen his convictions and formed much of the theme song he sang for the rest of his life. His viewpoint was remarkably simple, especially for an economist.

Freedom of decision, Friedman believed, was the necessary condition for the economic system to deliver the highest standard of living to the largest number of people. He was convinced that individuals as a group would make consistently better choices for themselves than bureaucrats who aimed to make decisions for those individuals. The Federal Reserve was just one government agency out of the many he would have preferred to see go out of existence or at least be relegated to just maintaining the money supply at a steady level.” - Peter L. Bernstein, Introduction, 2008 edition of The Great Contraction 1929-1933.

Its been restated many times that a free people, in a free market, free to choose among freely available choices, will make exchange at mutual self interest hence the pie expands. That fallacy exists based on zero sum thinking in that exchange is only a zero sum in that only one party gains at the expense of another party. The fallacy is exposed, in part, due to mutual exchange. If both parties do no perceive a gain, exchange will not occur.

"Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."- Milton Friedman


One may find insight by considering/constrasting the opposite proposition of Friedman’s free to choose, which is those advocating limited choice:

(1) proponents of limited choice advocate limited choice as the advocates know that the many and several would never choose the limited choice.

(2) advocates of limited choice have in fact chosen the particular limited choice.


Utility, or satisfaction, varies among everyone. Some people derive grand satisfaction by traveling the world while others love to be homebodies. Some love the beach others love the mountains. In each instance the person is free to choose among alternatives that derive the greatest satisfaction for that particular individual in that particular individual’s real time circumstances.

Advocates of limited choice have chosen to limit choice among infinitely dynamically changing choices, of which, yield maximum utility for particular individuals in particular individual circumstances. By extension, individual utility or satisfaction has been thus limited. The “limit” is imposed by limited choice advocates as without the limit the limited choice advocates know that the many and several would never choose the limited choice as they would seek particular-instance maximum satisfaction by way of the many other choices which have now been preempted.

What criteria would one use if one were an advocate of limited choice? Among many “choices” the advocates of limited choice hang their hat upon is “society”. An immediate problem arises in that “society” is an abstract concept. Have you ever met society? Shook hands with “society”? Regarding the abstract concept of “society”, one finds infinitely dynamically changing choices in what society means to particular individuals in particular individual circumstances. Hence the only way “society” can be an argument for limited choice - is if “society” itself becomes an abstract concept of limited definition and meaning.

Note: is society the summation of all the individuals freely choosing -or- is society a top down concept of certain individuals with a pre-chosen vision of society and the now the once free to choose individual must surrenders free choice to fit the pre-chosen vision of certain individuals?

One can quickly see limited choice becomes the plans of the few superseding the plans of the many. That advocates of limited choice want a limit based upon their choices of how they perceive what a limited choice of what “society” should mean to all. (3)

That is, a certain group wants to be free to choose to limit another group’s choice. Choice is used to preempt choice.

　


Notes:

(1) http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329543856&sr=1-3

(2) http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/

(3) http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
　

　

Contraceptive Compromise? Betsy McCaughey vs. Igor Volsky

In the video above note that Igor Volsky states the “free” contraceptive is paid as “part of the premium” paid, then reframes his position as “straight from the insurer…out of the reserves of the insurer”. Volsky might want to consider he doesn’t understand the difference between insurance premium and an insurer’s reserve. That Volsky first argues part of the premiums is a cost and hence no free lunch then turns around and argues that an insurance company’s “reserve” pays and hence it is free lunch time.

Later in the video Volsky attempts to frame ObamaCare as the ability to freely choose. First of all if freedom of choice was the overriding concept then there would be no reason for ObamaCare. What Igor Volsky is attempting to frame as free choice is: choice by a central authority [the plans of the few] has authorized as the choice ObamaCare, and then one can choose from a predetermined choice. Hence choice is framed as choice of a predetermined choice which by definition is not choice. It’s an argument of political dupery.

Revisiting William Graham Sumner from 1883: A Society That Refuses a Class Structure Must Be a Society With No Special Class Rights

“If we refuse to recognize any classes as existing in society when, perhaps, a claim might be set up that the wealthy, educated, and virtuous have acquired special rights and precedence, we certainly cannot recognize any classes when it is attempted to establish such distinctions for the sake of imposing burdens and duties on one group for the benefit of others.”

“If words like wise and foolish, thrifty and extravagant, prudent and negligent, have any meaning in language, then it must make some difference how people behave in this world, and the difference will appear in the position they acquire in the body of society, and in relation to the chances of life. They may, then, be classified in reference to these facts.”

“The class distinctions simply result from the different degrees of success with which men have availed themselves of the chances which were presented to them. Instead of endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made between the existing classes, our aim should be to increase, multiply, and extend the chances.”

“Such expansion is no guarantee of equality. On the contrary, if there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances the more unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to be, in all justice and right reason. The yearning after equality is the offspring of envy and covetousness, and there is no possible plan for satisfying that yearning which can do aught else than rob A to give to B; consequently all such plans nourish some of the meanest vices of human nature, waste capital, and overthrow civilization. But if we can expand the chances we can count on a general and steady growth of civilization and advancement of society by and through its best members. In the prosecution of these chances we all owe to each other good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guarantees of liberty and security. Beyond this nothing can be affirmed as a duty of one group to another in a free state.” (1)

Notes:

(1) What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, William Graham Sumner, 1883, pages 98 and 99.

And About Those Vehicle Sales Trends

Current public policy, also known as notional visions of elites through their particular politico enablers, is that auto makers should create small vehicles with greater gas mileage. In other words, the paramount purchasing criteria for consumers should be gas mileage regardless of consumer preference. However, the revealed preference of consumers is pickups, vans, and SUV’s. Go figure!

Truck sales, which includes pickups, vans, and SUV’s amounted to 51.2% of total new vehicle sales during 2011. During December 2011 the rate was even higher at 54.8% of total vehicle sales. (1)

Hence those third parties, your betters, those with the elite-knowing vision who know exact what is best for you are going to be very disappointed.

Meanwhile, back on the sub-compact gas mileage frontier, a small-claims court is about to hear a case regarding a hybrid buyer’s complaint that gas mileage is not as advertised:

“She alleged that Honda misrepresented the $25,400 car because it initially got 20% less than the 49 miles per gallon in the city and 51 mpg on the highway promoted on its window sticker and in promotional materials. She says the mileage worsened as the battery deteriorated — and a software update only exacerbated the problem. She sought compensation for her lost gas mileage, the premium she paid for a hybrid and diminished resale value.” (2)


One may find Honda’s counter to the allegation of interest. Honda merely is taking the wonderful government regulations that always accompany the notional visions of elites through their particular politico enablers, and stating:

　

“A Honda representative, however, countered in court that Honda followed government rules regarding gas mileage and that the automaker clearly states that fuel economy will vary depending on how owners drive the car.

"We have no choice," said Neil Schmidt, a technical specialist for American Honda, who brought in a blown-up copy of the car's window sticker. "We have to put these numbers on the label." He noted the small type on the label, which gave a listing of 41 to 57 miles on average, saying, "This is more toward the real world." He said the software update was aimed at extending the life of the battery and should not have affected gas mileage.”(3)


Ah, the evil of it all!



Notes:

(1) Truck sales revving despite high gas prices, us today, James R. Healey, 01/05/2012

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-01-04/truck-sales/52381866/1


(2) Honda goes to small-claims trial over gas mileage claims, us today, Chris Woodyard, 01/04/2012

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/honda-taken-to-small-claims-court-over-gas-mileage-claims/1

(3) Ibid.

　

　

　

Living Standards and Economic Freedom

H/T: Cafe Hayek