After surveying 3,000 people on their attitudes to choice, Bradley says: "I believe most people want the state to make these big decisions for them." This is not only because, in many cases, consumers are well aware that the choice of, say, school or hospital is – unlike a commercial selection of jams or phones or holidays – an utter fiction. The process of choosing is itself oppressive when the issues are life-changing, relating to health, money or careers. "The last thing people want is having more choices thrust on them," Bradley says. "They don't want to be perpetually having to make decisions." Regrettably, pending a general roll-out of the "no decision about me without me" principle, that choice does not appear to be recognised in the array of acceptable responses.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/08/catherine-bennett-education-health-big-society
Either O'brien works for the Observer or this is the British version of the Onion
Okay, on a free market there is a simple solution: create agencies that handle all of these "tough" decisions for you so you don't have to exert the amount of energy it takes to think and purchase a good or service
Eric080: Okay, on a free market there is a simple solution: create agencies that handle all of these "tough" decisions for you so you don't have to exert the amount of energy it takes to think and purchase a good or service
But how would the drones pick between competing decision agencies?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I, Ryan Know that I literally burst out laughing. Eric the solution: have an agency that handles the picking out of these agencies
pentahedron: have an agency that handles the picking out of these agencies
And then they can vote democratically on them... because Democracy makes everything ok!!
I,Ryan , that was great and something I didn't consider
Better yet, let the agency approach them, tell them that taking their money coercively is really in their best interest, and then after being riddled with corruption, ponzi schemes, and lying s.o.bs, they can get away with it!
And how do you decide between competing agencies that handle the picking out of these agencies?
There will be a chairman that's in charge of the agency reserve.
How does someone decide between competing agency reserves? ETC.
There's one chairman that rules them all.
Ok, so who decides who gets to be chairman? And what if I don't approve and start my own agency reserve (with myself as chairman)?
Nonsense. That chairman will have 19 other sub-chairman under his control.
3 for the Brits under their overcast skies
7 for the Chinese with their cast reserves of coal
9 for the Americans doomed by their corporate ties
You hit the nail on the head, people in fact dislike to make choices all the time, which are pressed upon them by the markets. I get sick all day having to judge and evaluate all the market info and disinfo that is daily being promoted to us. I think less choice, unless the pre-made choices are demonstratebly better, is better. Less choises mean less worries, and more time to put into things that really do matter.
It's only in the fiction of fundamentalist free market proponents, that such a system is ever favoured by real people.
They fantasize that people are able to make rational decissions about what products are better. The studies of behaviour of people (neuro-psychological studies) have again and again demonstrated that this is not true. A famous example is people having to make a choice between 4 identical socks. Even when the socks were exactly identical, people still made a choice (in most cases the last or pre-last one) and argumented why they choose that one. We have however in reality other motivation for picking that sock, instead of the identical others, already made for us by our subconsciousness, while our consciouss (verbalized) choice, was in most cases "just a story we made up" to defend the choice we already had been making. The process that really goes on in our brain is very different then most people tend to believe. The brain in fact has not some kind of central focus points where all the different choices come in, and one is selected for rational reasons. Instead, different parts of the brain compete with each other, and result in one part winning the game, and turning off the other parts. Only is seldom cases there is a near exact match and no definitive winner, which causes us to have erratic accidental behaviour (like trying to do two different things at the same time, leading in both attempts to fail).
Free choice and free will in fact are fictions, the reality of our behaviour is very different from that.
And who decides who the sub-chairmen should be? Sub-sub-chairmen? And the sub-sub-chairmen? Sub-sub-sub-chairmen?
I hit the nail on the head? I was just having fun with that response. And I agree that some people don't like having to make tough decisions and would probably delegate that option to someone who they think has authority to help with that decision or make it for them. For example I like to have options to choose from and often spend a lot of time doing research on something before I make my decision. This often leads to me having doubts but it's fun for me.
"Less choises mean less worries, and more time to put into things that really do matter."
And how do you choose between things that "really do matter"?
Okay, non-federal, it was kind of tongue-in-cheek, but if you insist....
Something like that could potentially happen on a market. If people decide they would rather do something else than compare defense, legal, grocery, and clothing prices and select certain ones, then maybe something would arise that would do all of their thinking for them and guarantee that their experience will be better with them doing all of the worrying. Instead of comparing prices and advantages of 30 different sectors of the economy, you just compare 1 sector of the economy (decision making agencies). Whatever floats people's boats.
Obviously this is highly facetious and I doubt anybody would agree to it. But if push came to shove, there's no reason why something like that could not theoretically arise on the market.
First off, what you are advocating is nothing short of totalitarianism. Just be sure to accept this definition going forward. Regulation of behavior by telling people they don't really know what they want has no limit. The limit extends from legal codes to which flavor of ice cream they "really" prefer. No free market advocate is saying that human beings make rational choices 100% of the time. The idea is that when their decisions are tied closer to their own preference sets and when their decisions have more of an effect on their lives, the motivation in making accurate decisions increases. The problem is, who decides which bureaucrat is most efficient at making other people's choices for them? Are they not under the same delusion of not being able to make rational choices? Are they elected? If so, they're being elected by dumb, moronic, automatons who don't know which sock they "really" want.
It's a matter of preference for me. It's economical.
"If people decide they would rather do something else than compare defense, legal, grocery, clothing, prices and select certain ones, then maybe something would arise that would do all of their thinking for them and guarantee that their experience will be better with them doing all of the worrying."
ALL of their thinking for them? What happens when this central planning board (which it is) decides for everyone that nobody can take back their decision making power? And how does it guarantee that everyone's experience will be better if it can't perform economic calculation?
Does the government make so many decisions for us because we fear choice, or do we fear choice because the government makes so many decisions for us?
(my answer: probably a little of both)
Wow, okay. When I say "all", that is hyperbole. I'm still under the assumption that they are entering this system voluntarily and can leave voluntarily as well.
In this hypothetical scenario, I'm just laying out the concepts put out by that author who wrote the piece on limiting choices. If people feel like they have too many choices, they can relegate certain choices that exhaust "too much" (subjectively) resources to this "planning board" and if they feel the need to leave, they are free to make that decision.
People fear choices because the "government" (mafia) kidnaps, tortures, and murders people who make the "wrong" choices.
Actually, I apologize, NonFederal. I had mistaken you for the Rob Heusens who has the exact same avatar as you do. My bad, I thought you were approaching this from an anti-capitalist view, which was bugging me
Yes, but that is a different situation, it is your job you do that.
But who wants to be bothered several times a day about what kind of products you have to choose. I think the rhetoric there of free markets ideologists, that people in fact should want that many choices, is simply a dilusion.
On the other hand, if you buy some more expensive stuff, sometimes you do want to, and possible also enjoy, to have some choice. But that is more or less an exception, you wouldn't want to be bothered all day with all that choices you would have to make even for the simplest products.
I think it is mostly a practical issue, and has a simple and elegant resolution. Instead that of all the people having to make all that many choices, it is in fact better and more practical to delegate some of that responsibilities to the government, which makes good decissions taking in mind the interest of all the people (ideally). It's common sense to do that in such a way.
Nonfederal Nonreserve:People fear choices because the "government" (mafia) kidnaps, tortures, and murders people who make the "wrong" choices.
I don't think people fear choice in everything. They seem to fear choice only in those things that they feel are overwhelmingly complicated. Of course, a lot of the reason why they feel that way about those things is because of the government.
Also, they've been taught (not so much explicitly, but certainly implicitly) that they're unqualified or literally unable to make "effective choices" in those very same areas. In other words, they've been taught to feel dependent in many ways.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
'But who wants to be bothered several times a day about what kind of products you have to choose. I think the rhetoric there of free markets ideologists, that people in fact should want that many choices, is simply a dilusion.'
Then hire someone to make choices for you. Problem solved. Government still unnecessary.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Common (non)sense, yes.
Pay someone to think for you then.
I suppose we're "unreal people" then.
They fantasize that people are able to make rational decissions about what products are better.
I am.
The studies of behaviour of people (neuro-psychological studies) have again and again demonstrated that this is not true. A famous example is people having to make a choice between 4 identical socks. Even when the socks were exactly identical, people still made a choice (in most cases the last or pre-last one) and argumented why they choose that one.
Value is subjective. Rationality is instrumental. Who cares what some ivory tower psychologist thinks on the matter? Yes, if pressed people will contrive a reason as to why they picked something. Sometimes they will buy it out of non-"rational" impulses, other times due to carefully calculated reasoning (how much time they invest in doing so depends on the gravity on the purchase, so in a sense spending less time thinking it through is rational even in the sense you use the word), but ALWAYS purposefully.
Unfortunately, nothing you posted above proves that. Don't be so arrogant as to presume you solved the free will debate by citing some frankly trite studies (which every marketing 101 student is aware of.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
when most parents in today's society do ALL the choices for their children (and even forcefully keeps them form making their own decisions, sometimes even when they leave parents' house) it is obvious that those children gonna grow up "fearing choices" and will want the government or other agency to do those "complex choices" for them.
It is that simple. People are taught to believe, that they are incompetent of making "right decisions" or "what is best for them". So there is this nanny which makes choices for them, because otherwise society would magically collapse.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
<<<People fear choices because the "government" (mafia) kidnaps, tortures, and murders people who make the "wrong" choices.>>>
What country are you living in?
<<<People fear choices because the "government" (mafia) kidnaps, tortures, and murders people who make the "wrong" choices.>>> What country are you living in?
The land of the "free". Where else do they have legalized torture (waterboarding), extraordinary rendition (torture outsourcing), gagging National Security Letters, indefinite detainment (Guantanamo Bay), and so on? Well, I guess Britain has had that kind of crap for a while now, we're just now catching up. Of course, the US government usually does not directly employ the people who murder Afghans in US custody, it simply contracts that work out. See here for a relatively brief synopsis of the kinds of barbarism the US government has been peddling since 9/11.
And now with the NSA's "Perfect Citizen" program, we've truly entered bizarro world... we have the FBI and NSA compiling "digital dossiers" on each and every US citizen. These same agencies can then use the dirt they dig up to spirit you away to some CIA black site where you legally "cease to exist" and then they get their jollies playing ping-pong with your nads. Don't think it can happen to you? Guess again. The US government has detained many US citizens under the Inquisition-style powers conferred upon it by USA PATRIOT. The Military-Industrial-Complex has become the new Holy Office. Just pray to whatever you pray to that you never get dragged before one its Inquisitors.
Clayton -
Though I generally reject Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics as a flawed approach, in the case of someone claiming that "choice is bad" it may be just the right medicine. I.e. I hereby take away your choice to believe that choice is bad and henceforth, you have no choice but to believe choice is good. Any attempt to oppose me presupposes that choice is, in fact, good. Hence, choice is good, even starting from the presupposition that choice is bad.
Just to play devil's advocate, there are some instances where having available choices can be bad. Particularly in game theory, where choices can hamper perceived commitment.
For example, Sun Tzu wrote that in battle you should always leave your enemy with an escape route, so he might be tempted to take it rather than fight to the death. Similarly, many invading armies throughout history have torched their own ships after landing so as to commit their forces to fighting.
Also, someone trying to diet might restrict their future choices by emptying their fridge so they are not tempted to eat.
And in Dr. Strangelove, the Doomsday Machine was effective (even though it [spoiler] destroyed the world) as a deterrent because it removed the element of choice in the Soviet response to an attack, decreasing the chance of the initial attack.
(I just read The Art of Strategy if you can't tell)
But then again, all of these were intially choices to restrict future choices, so overall freedom is of course good.
I did a 10 second google search and couldn't readily find Bradley's survey instrument.
However, I am a bit suspect of what questions he was asking these people.
"Would you be afraid if you were *forced* to choose between 100 different hospitals if your life depended on it and the wrong choice would lead you your death?!?!?!"
Question wording means everything. It really bugs me when these "paradox of choice" people draw broad policy implications from their less than robus results (he mentions the famous jelly experiment, but these experiment has been reconducted numerous times with far less dramatic results).
HUMBUG!
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley