freedom over happiness?

I think libertarians, including Objectivists, assume that freedom is always the best bet for yielding the greatest happiness. Some studies regarding maximizing and satisficing behavior suggest otherwise. For example, please see http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/maximizing.pdf. What are the consequences if in some instances happiness is better achieved by restriction rather than freedom. One consequence on my mind has to do with government. Should the government enforce freedoms that are making people less happy than they would be if the government were to enforce a restriction? Should the government enforce the restriction?

Jordan

Post 1

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 4:37pm

What kind of person would say, please, use violence against me, I need you to tell me how to live and how to be happy.

Post 2

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 5:54pm

yup ... freedom is slavery.

Sam

Post 3

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 7:08pm

Sam,

It would be "freedom is sometimes unhappiness," but that doesn't have a nice Orwellian ring to it.

Daniel,

Read the article I linked. More generally, self-paternalism is a word some economists throw around to capture the concept.

Jordan

Post 4

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 7:35pm

Daniel wrote: What kind of person would say, please, use violence against me, I need you to tell me how to live and how to be happy.

I can think of a group of people that wear an inordinate amount of leather that might say that!

Post 5

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:23pm

Jordan,

I am not happy when I look at my pay slip, which displays a negative number beside the positive number that I created. For you to suggest that I'd be less happy if I had that money is ridiculous.

For you to suggest that I'd be less happy if I could turn right on a one way street when the light is red (which stays red for too long) when no traffic is coming... is ridiculous.

I'm not going to read that article, its 20 pages long! Instead, why don't you point out a specific freedom that I would prefer not to have?

Post 6

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:41pm

Dean,

Hasty conclusions? Don't worry. I'm not suggesting any of those things. I'd rather you just read the article. If I have time, I'll try to summarize it.

In the meantime, I implore discussers here to try and imagine some time where they think less freedom would give them more happiness.

Jordan

Post 7

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 11:47pm

Jordan, I can think of some reasons from a lesser domain. I haven't read the article, but I think you might be alluding to simplification of choices? Choosing a good lager is a great example: with so many microbrews, it is hard to guess what may or may not be good. With a lesser choice, or a "restricted" freedom, I may be able to begin drinking more quickly. With a lager oversight board, poor lagers would have a lesser chance of clogging up the market. The downside is that some lager diamonds may be cast aside as lager coal. Personally, I want the freedom to drink shitty lager if I please, or at least run that risk. That is what life is about.

Jordan, I agree with your comment about the negative number on your paycheck. I like paved roads and public services like libraries and healthcare, and unfortunately those taxes are levied forcefully in the USA and are not equal among classes. If it were not taken forcefully, I would give more willingly. Or in a perfect world where everything is privatized, happily pay my society subscription fees ;)

Post 8

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 2:35am

Well, Rand's sister was one of those kind...

Post 9

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 7:03am

"I implore discussers here to try and imagine some time where they think less freedom would give them more happiness."

Merely thinking about the possibility of having my freedoms reduced makes me unhappy.

Post 10

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 7:30am

Jordan, the root of the error of your hypothesis is the 'impossibility of interpersonal calculations of utility'. In other words, 'the greatest happiness' is an undefinable concept. Only person A can know what makes person A happy and the same for person B and person C etc. No government can possibly have any such knowledge.

Furthermore, somewhere along the line, increasing person A's happiness will necessarily decrease person B's happiness.

As Fred pointed out in his article today, Objectivism (and libertarianism) are based on individualism, on the needs of the individual. Freedom is best because it is necessary for individual happiness. The concept of collective (ie, the greatest) happiness can never make sense.

Post 11

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 7:30am

I implore discussers here to try and imagine some time where they think less freedom would give them more happiness.

Why?

Post 12

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 8:14am

Ethan,

Why? So we can get somewhere in this discussion. Imagining the possibility opens the door.

Rick,

Freedom is best because it is necessary for individual happiness.

You think each individual is always necessarily made happier with increased freedom? This is empirically incorrect, according to the article I linked. Unless you accept that sometimes more freedom yields less happiness, we're at impasse.

Sam, amusing, but not helpful.

Donald, you have the general idea.

To everybody,

The idea here is that having too many options can sometimes lead to more dissatisfaction than satisfaction. Some folks spend a ton of time mulling over which option to pick, when instead they could be doing something more enjoyable. They pick an option, then feel remorse that they might've picked a less than best thing. They spend time worrying about the alternatives. These folks the article calls "maximizers."

Other folks don't spend such time mulling, feeling remorse, or worrying. They are quite content to pick the "good enough" option. I'm not sure, but I think they ignore the vast array of options in doing this. These folks are called "satisficers," which, as I recall, is a goofy merge of "satisfy" and "suffice." According to the article and several like it, satisficers tend to be happier than maximizers. If this is indeed the case, I'm wondering what we should do about, if anything.

Jordan

Post 13

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 8:27am

"Some folks spend a ton of time mulling over which option to pick, when instead they could be doing something more enjoyable. They pick an option, then feel remorse that they might've picked a less than best thing. They spend time worrying about the alternatives."

I'm not concerned about those folks. They should go into therapy. They're neurotic

Post 14

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 8:58am

When my wife and I go out to dinner, she invariably agonizes over the menu. "Everything looks so good, I can't decide what to order!" she laments. So, I give her my "rational choice theory" (which she is sick of hearing, I'm sure): If the choice is difficult because all of the choices are good, then it doesn't matter what you choose; you will get something good.

Jordan, I think the lack of interest in this topic is due to the fact that, although this may be an interesting psychological phenomena, IMHO, no Objectivist would even consider doing anything about it. The fact that some people cannot handle freedom is not a justification for limiting freedom, anymore than the fact that some people overeat would be a justification for limiting the amount of food an individual is allowed to eat. And other than somehow limiting freedom, what could possibly be done in light of this new knowledge? I guess maybe that's your question, to which I would answer: nothing.

Thanks,
Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 9/02, 9:06am)

Post 15

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 11:14am

Jordan, your mistake is in forgetting that happiness is not something to which one is entitled by right -- like one's life and liberty -- but a value to be pursued. If Thomas Jefferson wanted to say that men were endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness, he would not have written pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to give up your liberty, then I suggest learning about BDSM. There are plenty of people who would love to restrict you, if you think restrictions will make you happier. But leave me out of it. I like my liberty, such as it is these days, and am willing to accept the responsibility that comes with liberty.

Try to take my freedom, and I'll exercise my right to use force in self-defense. I've got a brand-new pair of Doc Martens that haven't been used in a righteous ass-kicking yet. :)
(Edited by Matthew Graybosch
on 9/02, 11:15am)

Post 16

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 11:47am

This happiness over freedom talk seems like just a shift of responsibility. If there are too many choices, and I'm afraid of making the wrong decision, then by asking someone else to limit my options for me, I'm shifting the responsibility to that person. Should the choice turn out poorly, I can always take comfort in saying, "well, I didn't have much of a choice anyway." It's a way to shy away from personal responsibility. The plus side is I won't take the blame for the decision, the negative is I don't get the credit either. Either way, regardless of how the decision turns out, I end up not learning anything by not making the choice myself.

JJ
(Edited by JJ Tuan
on 9/02, 11:48am)

Post 17

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 11:58am

Matt,

your mistake is in forgetting that happiness is not something to which one is entitled by right

That's not my mistake because I'm not saying any such thing. I'm asking what we should do if more freedom doesn't lead to more happiness as much as restrictions would. Why defend freedoms instead of restrictions if freedoms don't lead to your happiness as much as restrictions would? Why should a government defend your freedoms if others with the same freedoms aren't as happy with those freedoms as they would be with restrictions. This came up, by the way, with social security reform where most several scientific polls showed that US citizens would rather not have the freer social security options that W proposed.

Glenn,

What is a justification for limiting freedoms if not that they fail to best achieve our end (i.e., happiness) as much some other means.

To all,

I get the impression from the posts thus far and from other conversations that many of today's Objectivists treat freedom as an end rather than a means. This, I think, is a mistake and contrary to Rand's view.

I don't expect much more from this thread. Thank you all for your contributions.

Jordan

Post 18

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 12:10pm

JJ,

we crossed posts. Shifting responsibility happens all the time and is often quite good. For example, businesses shift responsibility to managerial experts; they out-source to technical experts; and they contract for various goods and services. The returns are often far greater with these responsibility shifts. Is it always a bad idea for an individual to shift responsibility, out-source, and contract? Similarly, many organizations make bylaws that bind the number and range of their future choices. These restrictions are often quite good.

Again to all,

Here's another example of when more freedom might not lead to more happiness. A hypothetical: a guy who's going to get smashed at a party often gives his keys to someone else, who agrees not to return them if the guy is drunk, even if the guy protests. The guy gives up the freedom to drive home drunk. He is happier having surrendered this freedom. Maybe you guys are comforted by the fact that he gave it up voluntarily. Fine. He still surrendered it. And he's still happier without it.

Jordan

Post 19

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 12:22pm