freedom over happiness?

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

Jordan"

Freedom for whom?
When freedom is denied to those who commit acts of oppression or aggression against society, I become increasingly happy.

Post 21

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 3:47pm

“Merely thinking about the possibility of having my freedoms reduced makes me unhappy.” [Sam]

Jordan, I’m surprised at you. You passed up an opportunity for a perfect Jordan moment. (Please take this in the playful spirit I intend.)

The proper Jordan response to Sam is:

Well then, Sam. Perhaps you should want to be relieved of your freedom to think about said possibility?

Post 22

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 10:58am

Are we talking about people with low self esteem who find comfortable the safety of a cage?
Have I understood it right?

Post 23

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 3:54pm

Ciro, in so many words, yes.
I unfortunately didn't clarify this in my reply, but it was about responsibility shifting, as pointed out in follow up posts.

But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.
-Maya Angelou

(Edited by Donald Talton on 9/02, 3:54pm)

Post 24

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 5:54pm

Jon:

"Perhaps you should want to be relieved of your freedom to think about said possibility?"

I'll think about it.

Sam

Post 25

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 11:12pm

Jordan,

I know some people, highly effective and accomplished people, who dislike car showrooms so much that if they were left in charge of buying a car they would have to walk to work. I know one who has an auto broker who arranges for a new car lease every year. “You pick the car. Give me whatever you think is the best sedan. Don’t ask me any questions, no color questions, nothing. Just deliver a new one every year.”

It’s a perfectly valid choice to relinquish choices you don’t want to be bothered with.

Regarding freedom as an end rather than means: So long as we substitute “choices” for freedom, and treat it as an individual issue—Sure, of course we relinquish some choices in some contexts as a means to happiness. We can never allow some to force others to relinquish their choices to ‘help them get happy.’

It sounds like the article mentions that many Americans feel they would be happier if the government stayed responsible for their retirement rather than they becoming more responsible. That’s fine. They can instruct their bank to put aside a portion of their direct deposit paycheck for retirement, “However you think is best.” They can contract away every last decision about it, how much to deduct, what to do with it, etc.

In so many words, all of this has been said above, I suppose. Are you simply looking for other instances of rational choice-passing?
-One can avoid neighborhood and school research by instructing their realtor, “I can spend X (or better yet, call my banker, he can tell you how much I can spend) get me whatever *you* would buy with X.”
-One can tell his Indian parents, “I am ready to dance for my paycheck. Show me who *you* think I should marry.”
Is it stuff like that you are after?

Jon

Post 26

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 12:49am

Jordan wrote:

Rick,
Freedom is best because it is necessary for individual happiness.
You think each individual is always necessarily made happier with increased freedom?

Of course not. Why would you ask such a silly question? Why don't you deal with what I actually wrote?

Post 27

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 3:33am

Freedom is a political term - assigning choices to another is not relinquishing one's freedom, but merely prioritizing one's immediate level of choosing - and can if desired be reprioritized.

Post 28

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 7:17am

Jon,

Are you simply looking for other instances of rational choice-passing?

Yes. It need not involve the government, although as an unofficial lawyer, that is of interest to me.

Rick,

I did deal with what you wrote. You wrote:

Freedom is best because it is necessary for individual happiness.

This implies that you think freedom best necessitates individual happiness. But empirically, freedom doesn't always best necessitate individual happiness, at least according to the article. I responded to you to check whether you honored empirics. If you don't, we're at impasse. I didn't think the question was silly. If you accept that freedom doesn't always best necessitate individual happiness, then what are you going to do about it? Again, your answer needn't involve the government or the forcing of other people. It could simply involve a time when you or a group of individuals should engage in some choice-passing.

Jordan

Post 29

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 8:14am

Jordan:

"It could simply involve a time when you or a group of individuals should engage in some choice-passing."

We do — and it's called government and I don't want any more of it than we already have.

Sam

Post 30

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 11:22am

Sam,

We do — and it's called government and I don't want any more of it than we already have.

I suggested that people here offer suggestions of choice-passing that doesn't involve government. Are you suggesting that such suggestions are impossible because every individual or group of individuals engaged in involves government?

Jordan

Post 31

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 11:41am

Jordan:

People already do that by subscribing to Consumer's Report. They pay them to evaluate products and make recommendations. All you have to do is look at the top item on the list and buy it. No mental anguish, no ulcers and it's a real time saver. Of course there are competitors to CR. Jeeez! You just can't get away from making decisions.

Apparently there are those who are unhappy making decisions. Let them band together and do whatever they want to do but you won't find anyone on this board who will make suggestions on what they should/could do because we don't know what it's like to be so beleaguered. Try some liberal/socialist board for ideas.

Sam

Post 32

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 12:27pm

Sam,

Like I said, I don't expect much more from this thread.

Jordan

Post 33

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 1:32pm

Jordan, I don't understand 'best necessitates'. One thing either necessitates something else or it does not.

Furthermore, you don't understand 'necessitate'. Neither freedom nor happiness necessitates the other. Neither makes the other necessary. Happiness does not necessitate freedom. Happiness requires freedom but the fact that you are free does not mean that you will necessarily be happy.

Post 34

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 9:24am

Donald I haven't read all the posts here, but this is what I say about freedom
1)Freedom in political contest means: the absence of physical coercion.
2)Since knowledge,thinking and rational actions rests on the individual capacity to think,
we must be free of the manipulation of those who don't.
3)We do not sacrifice our knowledge,our virtue, our life to the wish of others.
We can be silenced, BE UNDER MODERATION, even destroyed, but our mind cannot be forced. Silvio Pellico wrote: They have imprisoned my body but not my mind.
DC

Post 35

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 3:19pm

Rick,

In post 10, you wrote:

Freedom is best because it is necessary for individual happiness.

Then in post 33, you wrote:

Neither freedom nor happiness necessitates the other.

Looks like a blatant contradiction to me, but I'm guessing you're using "necessitates" to mean "sufficiently produces" rather than "is necessary for," which is how I'm using it. Sufficient and necessary are quite different, no doubt, but I digress. The issue here is that it still looks like you either think (a) that people can never be happy without freedom or (b) that people are always happier with more freedom than with less. Either way, both are empirically inaccurate.

Jordan

Post 36

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 12:01am

Jordan,

It occurs to me that it’s funny so many have responded with such anger toward this thread.

In morality I have the right, freedom, choice, to respond forcefully to the initiation of force. Yet, in Objectivism, I relinquish this right, freedom, choice, to the government, the monopolist of force. Now I no longer have the right to use force on those who initiate force on me. I’ve relinquished it to others.

Rand was happy with this exchange, and so am I, because this arrangement increases my overall potential to achieve happiness by establishing around me a law-and-order structure. I can focus on being productive without having to worry about who is dicking with me, or what to do about it. I may not always agree with the way the government fulfills this role, but nevertheless, the exchange increases my survival/flourishing/generativity potential, and that was her reason for promoting it.

Your topic in this thread closely matches the logic behind the justification of government in Objectivism.

Jon

Post 37

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 7:01am

Jon,

I appreciate your last post.

Jordan

Post 38

Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:20am

I have skimmed much of this thread, but the issue doesn't seem complicated to me.

There are many examples where a little less freedom might make me happier. As an example, there is a good chance that I might be less happy in a community with no gun control, if that meant that there was more gun crime and I felt less safe.

Regardless, I would never claim that gun control should be introduced or maintained.

The role of the government is not to produce, or to allow greater happiness - it is to defend our freedom.

Post 39

Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:42am