Deciding between choice and freedom

Posted on Updated on

Total freedom is a wonderful fantastic thing and it’s rarely obtainable in this life among the teeming throngs of individuals colliding with each other in everyday society.  Complete and utter freedom isn’t difficult obtain; it’s just undesirable.  If you want every choice to be solely directed by you alone, all you have to do is to walk into the woods and never talk to a single human ever again.  Perfect. Total. Freedom.  The minute you bring someone into your wilderness paradise your choices become necessarily constrained.  At first, it’s not typically a big deal.  The constraints one person places on you are not onerous and the advantages more than make up for the inconvenience.  If not, then there’d be no such thing as family.  But this is also true writ large.  What is gained by the association with one person is multiplied many times over the more people you have in your society.  Why does the US have the largest most sophisticated military in the world?  because we are the world’s third largest country by population.  We have a tax base of over 300million people in our country to support the military without having to resort to draconian measures that would be destructive over the long term.  The same is true for our scientific endeavors, our roads, waters, electricity, and other infrastructure, education, and every other human achievement is accomplished by this synergy of effort. Fine.  No one’s suggesting that there aren’t clear advantages to collective effort, but could be argued that in a free society such as ours, I should be able to choose my level of participation.  That’s true. It should work like that, but it doesn’t.  It wasn’t happenstance that the US was the first nation to develop nuclear power, the space race, and other achievements of science and technology.  Your participation in all of these programs was compulsory via your tax dollars. So it’s true that cooperation is highly efficacious.  No one really argues this, but what does this mean for choice?

It means you have a great deal more freedom, but fewer choices.  For example, my ability to speed down the freeway as fast as I can is highly constrained.   In fact, when it comes to highway travel my choices are exceedingly limited.  But within those limits, my freedoms are hugely expanded above that of a freeway system governed by lawless anarchy.  My freedom to travel is greatly enhanced because of the freeway system, but the freeway system demands an abridgement of my own personal behavior.  If I choose not to travel anywhere except on foot, then my choices are unlimited.  I just can’t go very far.  Again, what works in a microcosm works in the macrocosm.  As our society develops, new freedoms are invented.  Like this webpage.  This represents an expanded freedom of expression for me.  With new freedoms come new choices, and new limits on those choices.  Usually, these are not in conflict.  This written work is the result of my choices and freedoms, but it is not unlimited.  I must abide by reasonable restrictions, such as the terms of service from wordpress, my ISP, copyright law, and other conditions.  The restrictions of choice and the expansion of freedom are in such sync that expounding on them approaches the absurd.  However, this is not always the case and off the top of my head I can think of three.

Education.  It’s long been assumed that private education with all of it’s lovely choice, adherence to free market principles, innovation, and private funding is superior to public education.  It turns out that it’s not.  What private schools have going for them are wealthy families and wealthy neighborhoods which bring their own advantage and privilege.  Once you account for your population bias, private schools underperform relative to public schools.  Why?  Because of market forces.  I know it’s counter intuitive.  Typically we think of market forces as generating a superior product.  It’s not always true.  A private school isn’t required to follow best practices.  In fact there’s tremendous pressure on private schools to follow ‘traditional’ teaching practices that are ineffective and outdated.  Public schools aren’t given that choice.  The close public scrutiny that private schools escape creates a very demanding environment for public schools.  Districts that promote “school choice” programs do not necessarily do better than districts that do not.  Charter schools do no better on average than public schools.  More school choices, more freedom, should work better.  It doesn’t.  In part because of uncorrectable distortions in the market, human perception, and the difficulty of making rational choices, and imperfect information.  Consider that in 20 states it is still legal to hit a student in public school, and only two states have made it illegal for private schools.  This runs counter to 100 years of education and psychological research not to mention your own basic humanity.  It is unimaginably harmful for students.  Yet there’s pressure (largely in the south.  No surprise) among an uninformed population to maintain this practice.  If we define freedom for students as getting the best education available this will involve restricting choices at the level of parents, states, and school districts.

Healthcare.  This is a big one for a lot of people.  Once we decided that it was in our national self-interest to maintain a healthy citizenry, it became mandatory that people get healthcare.  At the moment the big debate is Obamacare and the individual mandate.  Should we require people to purchase health insurance?  Yes.  Absolutely.  One of the many many unstated goals of Obamacare is to move healthcare from a service industry to an infrastructure.  That means that like the roads, they need to be supported by everyone.  Freedom in this case is access to healthcare when you need it.  Healthcare economics dictate that you have to pay for it when you don’t need it if you’re going to have access to it when you do.  That’s just the way it works.  Should a person be able to walk into a hospital and clinic and pay for the services that he or she needs no more no less.  Absolutely.  Alas that’s not the way the world works.  If you want efficient hospitals and clinics you need a plan.

More importantly there’s another, quieter, revolution happening in medicine.  It’s called “evidence based medicine”.  Sounds wonderful, who doesn’t want their medicine to be based on evidence.  It turns out that it’s pretty much everyone.  Classic example is a parent demanding antibiotics for a child’s cold.  The antibiotics don’t work on colds, they’ll, in fact, cause antibiotic resistance which is harmful and deadly but the parent will get them anyway because they are free to demand it, and the doctors are free to prescribe any damn thing they like for just about any reason they like.  Another great example is breast screenings.  A study came out a few years ago that said women shouldn’t be getting as many breast exams as they were currently getting.  It sounds good, no one likes breast exams, but it caused unholy outrage among women’s groups who feared they would all now die of cancer.  The extra screenings were causing problems and weren’t as effective as researchers initially thought.  Plus they knew a lot more about cancer now than when they first started screenings.  Does that matter to patients?  nope.  But they’re going to demand the extra screenings and doctors will give it to them despite the fact that it’s wasteful and prone to creating expensive complications.  The medical field is full of this kind of stuff.

Charity.  Finally, there is a belief common among the conservatives that antipoverty efforts are best left to the private sector, especially churches.  Never mind the fact that churches don’t have resources to manage their own debts let alone take on a new antipoverty measure, never mind the fact that charitable giving doesn’t come close to what is necessary, or that the giving that is done isn’t necessarily effective at fighting poverty, or the hateful, idiotic, dangerous, inept, self-servicing, unabashedly evil argument that public charity creates dependency, they believe that the role of the federal government should be completely absent.  Why should we care about the poor?  From a completely selfish perspective, why bother?  Because I believe in freedom.  For me.  But I recognize that the accomplishments of this country are drawn from collective effort.  By disenfranchising a segment of the population we can not obtain our next expansion in freedoms.  Indeed they risk shrinking.  Wealth in this country is generated not by the super wealthy (although I’m sure they like to think so), but by the middle class.  The bigger and stronger the middle class is, the wealthier and better off everyone will be.  And by everyone I mean me.  The private sector does important work; I don’t want to dismiss it.  But effective anti-poverty efforts can only be done at the state and federal level.  This will necessarily abrogate a little choice for Joe Taxpayer.  In return he will obtain freedom.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s