How can more choices be less freedom?

Jiacui Li

Dr. Hélène Landemore

POLS0820D: Freedom

15 December 2008

 

Do more choices mean more freedom? Usually, the answer is yes. When eating at a restaurant, we hope for more alternatives on the menu. When registering courses for next semester, we hope for more choices offered, so there can be a better chance of finding the right fits for us. However, I will argue that simply having more alternatives in decision making does not necessarily mean more freedom.

The Costs of Suppressing Free Thought

Qian Yin

Dr. Hélène Landemore

POLS0820D: Freedom

7 November 2008

 

Thoughts are powerful. Individuals act upon their opinions; countries are designed according to political theories – thoughts shape the world. Theoretically, if we can all be guided by truths and abstain from the damage that a blinded opinion does to both the society and our mental well being, we would all be better off. Consequently some people think that thoughts should be controlled; by prohibiting the false opinions and protecting the true ones, we live a better life. John Stuart Mill does not agree, evidenced by his claim that “suppressing free thought often hurts the suppressors more than the suppressed”. It is not possible to accurately measure whether the suppressor or the suppressed is more severely hurt, but Mill’s argument shows that the negative effect of suppressing free thought is so great to the suppressor that it does the opposite of fulfilling the suppressor’s primary goal – it does not promote the truths, and also impairs the suppressor’s mental well being.

Will the cost of law be too high?

(This is a response posted in Buxis’ blog. Her blog is a nice place with original Chinese essays on movies, books, places, etc. Please follow this link if interested: http://wordsneverdie.ycool.com/)

 

Hi. Your blog seems really unattended, just like mine.

I completely agree with your saying that the job of a lawyer is not to defend justice but her client. Justice is for judges

to uphold.

Sooner or later, our discussions about law will be one between an expert and a layman. Please be ready to answer questions

from an ordinary citizen =)

I do have an interesting and distracting (hope not stupid as well) question about law that I hope you can address next time.

It deals with the whole system of law.

I’m not asking that you give some definite answer, but rather shed some light or at least write some thoughts on it. It helps

to think about it.

——–

I’ll word the question here (as concise as I can make it):

Will the cost of law be too high?

————-

Explanations:

For every software you install and every BBS you enter, you will always see a long passage of “terms of condition” that

specifies the legal status of the user and the provider. Did you ever read it? Well, almost no one does so. Why? Because is

it TOO COMPLEX.

Yes, every thing in modern society is governed by law, and law itself is getting more and more complicated. Physics has been

a very demanding subject for 300 years, yet a student with a college degree in physics can grasp most of the concepts of the

whole discipline. And what about law students? Well, after probably eight years of tedious study, you can be expert (if

fortunate) only in some very specific field. Really narrow. And in other fields you know little.

That’s the intimidating size of legal-knowledge – the terrifying, petrifying library of codes, precedents, cases and

different interpretations. It is better in some Roman-law country like China in which the law is somewhat uniform throughout

the country; in United States, crossing a state border means you have to learn a whole new set of rules. What is worse, the

common-law countries rely on precedents whose size is ever increasing with new trials.

In a nutshell, the legal documents are getting thicker every day, every moment, – even at this second when I write this short

essay. Usually we assume that more laws means a better society. But if it gets too much, it can be the opposite.

The very fact that you skip those “terms of conditions” proves that too much can be worse. If there are just a few lines, you

would probably read them. But when there is a long list, you simply give up.

Why give up? Don’t you realize that there is a risk in clicking the “I agree” button when you don’t know what you are

consenting to? The answer is very simple – when the law is too complicated, THE COST (to read it) IS HIGHER THAN THE RISK.

Therefore you would rather take the risk.

How sad.

That “terms of conditions” is supposed to clarify things for the parties involved in the internet activity. But does it?

—–

This is just a glimpse of the whole problem about law. The cost of legal service rises with the complexity of laws, and it is

rising every day. And clearly, the higher the cost, the more “uneconomical” it is for people to use law, and the less

effective is the rule of law.

Well you probably think we should simplify those verbose law books? Well, within the current system, you can do that only by

setting up new laws. You see the paradox?

This is not a specific problem, but rather a potential trouble related to the WHOLE SYSTEM.

It is already affecting our daily life. When you need to defend yourself in terms of law, you need legal consulting, which is

really expensive. That really pulls back you from doing what you should do. For example, a trader cheated you a big sum of

money. But when you calculate, in your dismay, you find out that hiring a lawyer may cost more than the money you can get

back, and that trader may lose all the money when you finally win in the court (it can take years), and that you are not so

sure of winning in the trial, you give up. You give up! What does that mean? It means that law is not functioning properly!

It is fails to protect one of its citizens!

It is exactly the high cost and low efficency of law that makes a lawful society less effective.

The aforementioned senario is a perfect example of what happens when the COST EXCEEDS THE BENEFIT.

In a specific case, cost can exceed benefit. So, isn’t it rational to say that, if the cost of law keeps rising (as it is

now), it may reach a point when the cost exceeds benefit FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM?

————-

This is indeed a disturbing question to think about. I hope it is not valid, because it challenges the rule of law, which has

been accepted as a basic element of a civilized society.

As some philosophers speculated, we humans left the the “state of nature” governed by natural law to create societies

governed by man-made law. Just like natural laws run nature, man-made laws run society.

However, laws in nature is characterized by simplicity and elegance. Human laws is simple and elegant in spirit (like in

constitutions), but really complicated in specific things.

God created natural laws and designed them with unmatched talent. We, earthly beings, do not possess such talent.

—————–

I hope you can think about this question and address it next time you write, buxi. It is great that you have access to law

professors while I do not.

Again, I do not ask for a definite answer if there is not one; I simply want to know what you think.

The falling point of utility — a utilitarian critique of Mill

Jiacui Li

Dr. Hélène Landemore

POLS0820D: Freedom

7 November 2008

 

Why is Mill’s defense of individuality so appealing? One reason is that he abstained from pure philosophical speculation and based his argument on utilitarian grounds. By “regard(ing) utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions” ^[1], he showed that individuality is not only desirable in theory, but also fruitful in practice. Compared with other abstruse theories on the same topic, Mill’s message communicates much more effectively to the masses: individualism is desirable, because it maximizes utility.

However, when approached from a completely utilitarian position, his theories are problematic. In this essay, I will first show that why Mill failed to meet truly utilitarian standards, and then introduce another way to evaluable the desirability of individualism.

The Untouchables

Samson

 

Susan Blackmore’s chapter “The Ultimate Memeplex” and Lauren Slater’s essay, “Dr. Daedalus” both deal with the notion of the highs and lows of human evolution. Human beings are thought to be the only creatures capable of having a soul, free will, and an intelligence that supersedes that of other creatures. However, as evolution supposedly transformed us to the best and most adapted beings, humans still encounter greater problems, through memetics, than that of lower species. Memetics represents the passing of ideas, trends, behaviors, or usages throughout society.

Reconciling irreconcilable ideas – in response to Qian’s essay

Thank you, Qian, for allowing me to publish your essay. This is one more step towards our intellectual discussion, so I hope it can be made the norm in the future.

Your standpoint is very clear – defending that the idea of “general will” is not a threat to individuality, but rather, a blessing. According to Rousseau’s theory, “general will” is unanimous, infallible, wisest, and therefore the best thing that can happen to human society. After all, who doesn’t want to get all the benefits (positive freedom), and be “as free (negative freedom) as before”?

Maximizing the Freedom

Qian Yin

Dr. Hélène Landemore

POLS0820D: Freedom

10 October 2008

 

In his work The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau aims to design a society within which an individual gets protection from the State, while “obey[ing] only himself and remain as free as before” (50). The freedom he depicts in his theory, however, is considered by Isaiah Berlin as a conception associated with tyranny, which may be commonly understood to relate to an absolute and centralized rule as well as the people’s lack of freedom. While the approach Rousseau takes to construct the society may raise readers’ apprehensions of the generation of a tyranny, taking a more comprehensive and coherent view of the book, I understand it as an integral part of a theory which effectively diminishes the possibility of a tyranny, and ensures the rule of the people.

In defense of Hypothetical social contract theories

It is often alleged that hypothetical social contract theories are waste of paper because they are hypothetical. That remark seems logical. After all, what’s the practical value of those vague theories relying heavily on suspicious assumptions, analogies and metaphors?

But if they are useless, why would they be banned by contemporary crown-heads? Why should those powerful men feel threatened by “wasted paper”? I would argue the opposite: despite their theoretical nature, social contract theories are very useful.

Freedom. First encounter.

 

(This is an essay written like a letter to Helene, instructor of POLS 0820. )

 

I didn’t notice the importance of the concept of freedom until two years ago. It came to me through Bush’s second inaugural speech, “There Is No Justice without Freedom” Before he spoke, I assumed that he would elaborate on combating terrorism, but he turned the speech into a praise song of the idealism of liberty. And his justification for Iraq was done by invoking the cause of freedom:

Eagerminds. Embarks.

In order to faciliate discussion and exploration,

more specificly,

exploration on the topic of freedom,

and even more specificly,

on the things related to freedom presented by a course named POLS 0820A in some strange school with a color as its name,

 

Some eager animals convene here,

Looking around at the beautiful yet mysterious world,

Sniffing,

Searching,

Scratching their heads,

Busy contemplateing.

 

They wonder loudly,

What is beyond the mountains,

What beneath the rivers.

They marvel at every colorful shell brought to them by the summer waves,

and every leaf that falls with a wintry breaze;

They love,

every star that twinkles,

Every drop of water,

And every beam of sun shine.

 

They pray,

That their journey is worthwhile;

They imagine,

That they are right in direction;

They hope,

And sometimes, they even believe,

That one day,

They may really understand everything out there.

 

In order to see the world with brighter eyes,

In order to appreciate the beauty of mind,

Fate brought them here together by the same intense cuiosity.

 

Please help them ,God.