New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 16, 2005

It's a typical situation in these typical times: Too many choices. Nevertheless, as Virginia Postrel observes, everybody's happy, everybody's free.

Comments

|6.16.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Schwartz recounts his troubles buying jeans at The Gap. What used to be a five-minute task requiring no more information than a waist size and length now demands multiple decisions and an unnerving amount of self-awareness. What leg shape and denim wash say �Barry Schwartz�? What shape is his body really? �Finally, I chose the easy fit, because a �relaxed fit� implied that I was getting soft in the middle and needed to cover it up,� he writes. Schwartz acknowledges that offering more styles and fits is good �for customers with varied tastes and body types,� but he discounts their interests. Ill-fitting jeans are a small price to pay for simplicity, he suggests.

See, now this is why logic should be a required course for all American students. Schwartz says ill-fitting jeans are a small price to pay for simplicity? Well, if he were willing to wear ill-fitting jeans he wouldn't have spent so much time obsessing over which exact pair to buy in the first place--he could have just bought the cheapest pair, or the first pair he grabbed that fit at all. I don't know which pair of jeans say "Barry Schwartz," but I know those jeans need to shut the hell up.

If you can't handle choice, then just resolve to buy the cheapest of whatever's out there. Or the most expensive, if you're a snob. Idiots.

|6.16.05 @ 10:31AM|#

The portion of the article that Jennifer quotes led me to believe that this guy had confused his anxiety from too many choices with his inability to accept his "unnerving self-awareness" that he had gotten fat.
As someone who recently gained fifteen pounds, I can empathise, but sheesh.

|6.16.05 @ 10:35AM|#

Ill-fitting jeans would be an unconscionably high price to pay.

|6.16.05 @ 10:50AM|#

I think Virginia hits on this in her article, but Mr Schwartz neglects the idea that even given 50 choices, most options are worthless to most people. For example, there might be 20 varies of apple at the grocery store, but I like Macintosh apples best and hate the inappropriately named Red Delicious apples. So my number of choices drop.

I also hate white chocolate and peanut butter, so a candy display that with different combinations is instantly reduced by any chocolates with either of those qualities.

As far as the jeans go, I know what I like already. The only way I'll get aggravated is that despite having 25 choices, none looks good on me.

drf|6.16.05 @ 10:52AM|#

It is interesting to chat with people who honestly seem to believe that too much choice/ too many choices is a negative state of affairs that has dire consequences for those who are unable to handle it.

Therefore, so their thinking, too much choice is bad.

There's a German phrase, "the misery of choice", and having several alternatives is often viewed as being constraining. One interesting thing that pro EU people I know state is that the EU limits the myriad of choices out there (positive), and that harmonization is therefore good. Then, they turn around and criticize the "starbucks culture" here. When they travel to the far east, they look for mcdonalds, too. go figure.

Choice is a good thing. Choices must be made, and we must be able to decide. Keep it coming!

hope every body else's thursday is going at least this well :)

cheerio,
drf

|6.16.05 @ 10:56AM|#

I think Schwartz' real problem is that he's not afraid of choice--he's afraid of taking responsibility for making a BAD choice. It's kind of like when I was growing up; I knew a lot of racists and the more dirt-poor a person was, the more racist he was likely to be. Why? So that instead of taking responsibility and saying "My life sucks because I did a lot of stupid things, like drop out of school and show up drunk at work," he can just say "My life sucks because I had no control over it! It was the (blacks/Jews/whoever) who fixed things so that I can't get or keep a decent job."

So, if everybody wears ill-fitting jeans, you can't be held responsible for the fact that yours make you look like a cow. Whereas when people can choose which jeans to buy, they have to admit that their jeans make them look like a cow because they do, in fact, have a bovine body.

|6.16.05 @ 11:01AM|#

Ms. Postrel hits it on the head when she says that we have "mixed feelings" about choice.

For example, I've noticed that there are about 15 variations each of Coke and Pepsi on the soda aisle at the grocery store.

My personal favorite soda is Diet Pepsi Wild Cherry, so I'm glad to have the extra options.

On the other hand, back when I had to choose between just Coke or Pepsi, I don't recall being any less happy with soda or thinking "Man, I wish this stuff came sugar-free with a hint of cherry flavoring!"

|6.16.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Ding ding ding! I think Jennifer nails it. I've been meaning to write something one of these days on what James Buchanan calls "parentalism." (Paternalism: I'm worried other people will make stupid choices without government guidance; we must control them out of compassion. Parentalism: I no longer trust myself to make stupid choices, or indeed, even to decide when to outsource certain decisisons to a relevantly competent expert.)

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 11:05AM|#

I think Schwartz should open up a simplified-choice jeans store and clean up.

Oh yeah, after he's convinced lawmakers to close down all the exessive-choice jeans stores. Almost forgot that crucial part.

dagny|6.16.05 @ 11:06AM|#

The example about the GAP is certainly odd, to say the least. I think most people, if they don't care about jeans, will buy cheap jeans somewhere convenient. If you live in the midwest, you can pick a pair up at Meijer while doing your grocery shopping. By buying your jeans at the GAP instead, you are saying "I have a real interest in the sort of jeans I buy". So of course you're going to be given choices. Being upset at there being a variety of jeans at the GAP is like being upset that there's more than one type of bread at a bakery.

|6.16.05 @ 11:15AM|#

"I think Schwartz' real problem is that he's not afraid of choice--he's afraid of taking responsibility for making a BAD choice."

Just so. Good point, Jennifer.

Over at Jane Galt's blog, I posted an extremely snarky comment in a thread on this same issue. In the clear light of day and the murkier light of a cup of coffee, I think I hit on something. In that comment, I ridiculed people who were afraid of choice as math and writing illiterates because they had to pick the right answer, or the right word, out of milions of choices.

Now, you were a teacher. Do you think that performance anxiety in math and writing classes (i.e. stress on and from having to get everything correct) is reflected in this inability to make consumer choices?

Don't anyone get me wrong here... I work for engineers and I fully appreciate the value and necessity of getting things right! :)

|6.16.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Including the spelling of "millions." Heh.

|6.16.05 @ 11:18AM|#

In Schwartz' defense, Americans have more consumer choices than ever before, yet studies indicate that Americans also suffer more from stress, anxiety, and depression than ever before.

Are the two related? Hard to say for sure, but it seems possible.

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 11:24AM|#

dagny,

Good point. So we must up the ante of Jennifer and Julian's point one notch on the meta realm. Ie, Schwartz's problem isn't just with choosing the wrong jeans, but choosing to shop at the wrong jeans store!!

drf|6.16.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Danimal:

I would say that what you're highlighting might be a spurious connection, and would be careful in suggesting that they may be related. That precautionary stance might actually hinder what is wrong: maybe americans are so stressed because they are dishonest with themselves and cannot bear the fact that their old jeans don't fit (since they tried a fad diet and gained weight), and have to deny why. Jennifer nailed it above.

For one, we do not how to measure the psychological well-being of Americans 20, 30, 100, 150 years ago. We could come up with other reasons, other than choice, that we could associate with the stress. We could say that stress has increased since 1994, oh! the republican congress's religious stance has confused americans! or something else that is equally impossible to prove.

And we could simply be overlooking that we don't have to worry about things that were horrible fears 100 years ago.

So, in response to your final sentences, "are the two related?" maybe. maybe not. does one cause the other, probably not.

the two things might, for example, share a time trend, but that is their only similarity. there are plenty of reasons to reject the "hard to say for sure, but seems possible".

thanks,
drf

|6.16.05 @ 11:28AM|#

Danimal,

Are the two completely unrelated? Hard to say for sure, but it seems possible.

Don't let the gestalt of perception cloud your judgement.

|6.16.05 @ 11:31AM|#

"I think Schwartz' real problem is that he's not afraid of choice--he's afraid of taking responsibility for making a BAD choice."

That's obviously what he's saying - simply having a choice in a situation increases the anxiety level to some degree because of the possibility of making "wrong" one.

Think of the old game show "Let's Make a Deal". Monty Hall gives you, for example, $500. Usually, you'd be very happy with being given money for free, but then Monty offers whatever is behind door #1 instead. Now, you're under pressure to make the "right" decision, and if you decide to keep the money and there's a new car behind door #1, all the sudden the $500 is a disappointment!

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 11:32AM|#

Danimal,

There's an infinite number of ways to interpret such results, but the important question with this issue as it is with any is, what is the alternative? Unless we decide that centrally and coercively enforced limits on choice are better, we're stuck with the pros and cons of what we have. Of course, if one could also use the data to exploit people's antipathy to too much choice. To extrapolate on Dagny's point, this is probably already happening. Of course, if the problem is that there are other people in the world who make use of choice better than others, then we're back to either coercively limit those choices or adapt. Unlike some folks (including Virginia Postrel) I won't ever say that we're necessarily happier than we were as cavemen (and women). I mean, who really knows. But, what to do? I don't think coercively limiting choice is much of an answer. Is there any other?

|6.16.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Schwartz says ill-fitting jeans are a small price to pay for simplicity

I'm with Serafina. Ill fitting jeans suck. Maybe I'm biased because I have unconventional measurements. I have relatively big thighs compared to my waist so I either have to get jeans that are far too wide for my waist or uncomfortable tight on my thighs. Neither is much fun. Choice recognizes that all of us aren't built in the same proportion.

|6.16.05 @ 11:36AM|#

Speedwell-
I don't know that test anxiety and "consumer anxiety" are related; I think that, especially with today's emphasis on standardized testing, tests make you nervous because there's so much at stake. Think how nervous you'd be about posting here, if one typo or grammatical error could literally ruin your whole future!

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 11:37AM|#

Think how nervous you'd be about posting here, if one typo or grammatical error could literally ruin your whole future!

Id bee fukged.

|6.16.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Danimal,
Americans live longer and are healthier today than they were a hundred years ago, "yet studies indicate that Americans also suffer more from stress, anxiety, and depression than ever before."

Are the two related? Hard to say for sure, but it's possible.

drf|6.16.05 @ 11:39AM|#

just imagine the negative points gaius would get for his lack of capitalization.

(hi fyodor: sorry for being grumpy yesterday)

cheers,
drf

|6.16.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Virginia Postrel: "You look for a red cotton crewneck sweater that fits well and costs less than $50. When you find one, you buy it."

And if you decide in advance that you want a hand knit sweater, in your size, that is the precise shade of your favorite skirt, duplicate stitch embroidered with sequins, made from organic cotton, and sold anywhere but a mall or Wal-Mart (because you are phobic of large crowds), I bet you could find one somewhere, probably on the Internet.

I very frequently have a need or a wish, think of a solution, and go online to successfully find the product I (independently) thought of, usually linked to another product that answers my need even better.

The proliferation of choice thus, paradoxically, streamlines my buying. I think this is the direction we're going in.

|6.16.05 @ 11:47AM|#

mk & drf:

Certainly by saying that they �may be related� I�m acknowledging that they may not be as well. I�m kind of throwing an idea out there that is impossible to prove either way.

drf|6.16.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Hi Danimal,

since the measurement of what "anxiety" is 1) subjective and 2) not well-established, you cannot make the claim that we are more anxious than ever before. We might not be at all. So, that's where my first objection begins.

we cannot know what our anxiety was, as fyodor mentions, so we cannot say anything about how it's been changing. it's a spurious connection.

and bringing up that those two might be related, but they might not be related, gives creedence to lousy science. Unless the counterfactual you bring up is decently supported, it's not worthy of analysis, especially in the postrellian manner.

cheers,
drf

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Oh drf, you can be as grumpy as you like!! :-)

Danimal,

Certainly by saying that they �may be related� I�m acknowledging that they may not be as well.

Point taken. However. Unless you think the causation you implied is likely enough to be taken seriously, why bring it up?

|6.16.05 @ 11:56AM|#

Danimal,
There's an infinite number of ways to interpret such results, but the important question with this issue as it is with any is, what is the alternative? Unless we decide that centrally and coercively enforced limits on choice are better, we're stuck with the pros and cons of what we have.
I agree. It seems that some libertarian-types assume that because I think that Schwartz has a point that I�m automatically advocating government limitations on the products that can be sold.
I�m just saying that there is some truth to the idea that at times choice can become a burden instead of an advantage to the individual.

fyodor|6.16.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Danimal,

Well, it's alarming talk. And whether or not you're advocating limitations on choice, many of those who talk this possible phenomenon up certainly do. Perhaps we can conclude that even if freedom is not necessarily a proven panacea, it's still better than all the other forms of social organization that have been tried! :-)

|6.16.05 @ 12:11PM|#

Re: political implications, it's worth noting that Schwartz himself has written numerous topical op-eds based on his "choice paralysis" theory, arguing (for instance) that higher marginal tax rates are good for the wealthy, whose higher incomes only burden them with more choices, and that private accounts based Social Security reform would burden Americans with too many awful investment options to navigate.

|6.16.05 @ 12:11PM|#

Hi Danimal,
since the measurement of what "anxiety" is 1) subjective and 2) not well-established, you cannot make the claim that we are more anxious than ever before. We might not be at all. So, that's where my first objection begins.
Points 1 and 2 are both true about anxiety, but they are so true about such concepts are �happiness� or being �better off�, yet the author of the piece is certainly making the claim that we are happier and better off with the abundance of choice, right?
we cannot know what our anxiety was, as fyodor mentions, so we cannot say anything about how it's been changing. it's a spurious connection.
But you and Fyodor are making baseless assumptions yourself here � how do you know that we can�t measure, at least in a general sense, the overall levels of happiness, anxiety, etc. in a society? At the very least, there are statistics that show that more people are being treated for mental disorders now than in the recent past. Granted, that�s not proof of anything but I don�t agree with your claim that we are somehow clueless about the mental and emotional state(s) of our society in the past.
and bringing up that those two might be related, but they might not be related, gives creedence to lousy science.
True, but I�m not speaking in a scientific context, either. I�m not claiming to have proven anything, I�m only giving my general impression of things. Most ideas are unprovable but I don�t think that makes them not worth mentioning.

|6.16.05 @ 12:13PM|#

I think George Carlin sums up this "choice" debate quite well:

"I look at the politics of this country as a game that is played on the people, this illusion of choice. It's interesting that the important things have been reduced in number: oil companies, communications, pharmaceuticals, insurance, banking, accounting, all these firms have been merged and reduced. The choices are very limited. But if you want a bagel, we've got twenty-six flavors. There are four hundred kinds of mustard in this country. These are the illusions of choice. I don't really think choice is here to any substantive degree."

gaius marius|6.16.05 @ 12:14PM|#

lol, mr drf.

Parentalism: I no longer trust myself to make stupid choices, or indeed, even to decide when to outsource certain decisisons to a relevantly competent expert.

why is this bad? isn't this often simply a rational deduction based upon experience?

there's a difference between the ideology of infinite choice and the reality. most people aren't perfectly informed -- in fact, most people are totally uninformed and have little option but to stay so, even (or maye especially) about important issues like personal financial planning. ms postrel addressed this in saying

Libertarians sometimes talk as though the act of choosing is a good in and of itself and treat any limitation on choice as some kind of weakness, irrationality, or tyranny. Yet free individuals voluntarily limit their options all the time.

but she doesn't address the problem of a market of gatekeepers, which is that uninformed consumers are uninformed gatekeeper-selectors. as with the media choice explosion, totally free consumers choose the gatekeepers that reconfirm their existing suspicions, limiting the marketplace to a sort of personalized ideological yes-man in the clothing of an objective and helpful source of information. (which gives birth to the weekly standard.) gatekeepers, for their part, tailor their service not to public empirical benefit but the most popular mythology which gives them the broadest currency. ms postrel's model is based on the fallacy that human beings are rational machines which make choices to serve their best interests -- when most people are highly emotional and irrational, and usually have no idea what their interests are.

institutional gatekeepers don't have this problem because they're the only game in town. they aren't subject to the wild vacillations and mythmaking that are part of populism. are they subject to abuse? yes. but i think we're in the process of discovering over the long term that even an abusable institution is a far better solution to the problem of social stability that freiheit.

worse, i think she totally misunderstands social commitment.

?Social ties actually decrease freedom, choice, and autonomy,? he writes. ?Marriage, for example, is a commitment to a particular other person that curtails freedom of choice in sexual and even emotional partners.? So gays who cannot legally marry their partners are somehow freer than heterosexuals who can? There?s something deeply wrong with this understanding of choice. Freedom to choose must include the freedom to commit.

society is integrated by involuntary contracts. you don't choose to be american when you're born in chicago. you don't choose to be catholic when you're baptized as an infant. the social ties that are the basis of civilization consist of mandatory, irreversible and powerfully enforced contracts. when people are seeking en masse ways to opt out of or void those, talking about the responsibilities of citizenship and religion as though they were choices, the society isn't far from rupture and chaos.

this bit

The more freedom we have to control our lives, the more responsibility we have for how they turn out. In a world of constraints, learning to be happy with what you?re given is a virtue. In a world of choices, virtue comes from learning to make commitments without regrets. And commitment, in turn, requires self-confidence and self-knowledge.

?We are free to be the authors of our lives,? says Schwartz, ?but we don?t know exactly what kind of lives we want to ?write.?? Maturity lies in deciding just that.

is WOEFULLY idealistic. do we not see our own society for what it is? are not most people in postmodernity seeking to flee these responsibilities and disengage reality with all possible haste? isn't this society largely made of cases of arrested development? and now they're going to -- what? -- suddenly exhibit the wisdom of solon? please.

Kevin B. O'Reilly|6.16.05 @ 12:16PM|#

Jennifer writes: "If you can't handle choice, then just resolve to buy the cheapest of whatever's out there. Or the most expensive, if you're a snob. Idiots."

But wouldn't Schwartz then have to choose between whether to be a cheapskate or a spendhrift? Which spending habits say "Barry Schwartz"?

drf|6.16.05 @ 12:16PM|#

Hi Danimal:

As a libertarian type who didn't think you were advocating government intervention, I would still highlight this statement:

"I�m just saying that there is some truth to the idea that at times choice can become a burden instead of an advantage to the individual."

that might be true for you, but it is also an advantage to individuals. Some are happy that they can avoid fashions, music, food, entertainment, even people they don't prefer. Some are much better off. In short: there is some truth to the idea that at times choice is liberating and not a burden to the individual. Since we cannot predict when that is the case, I feel it is best left up to the individual to make that decision, not in terms of governmental intervention, but in terms of assessing whether more choice is positive or negative.

As Fyodor notes, more choice can very well be a better state than the alternatives, especially when it is impossible to measure to what extent choice is a burden or advantage to individuals.

(example: I am a huge Rollins Band and Black Flag fan. others prefer U2. we can avoid each other while I drink my stiegl and they drink their w(h)ine coolers. grin)

cheers!
drf

|6.16.05 @ 12:21PM|#

I've seen this book and its pitifully professorial argument. One thing no one's mentioned is this argument seems to be cousins with other intellectual/luddite thrusts of recent decades. One of the subtexts here seems to be time spent choosing is time wasted...time wasted one could have used to read the Waste Land and better oneself. Or if you like, choosing jeans is empty and meaningless, like watching television, when one could picket Bush or read Chomsky.

Anyway, everyone I know with money loves exploring choice. It's an exercise in power which is intrinsically stimulating. It provides variety to respond to the crippling boredom. Responding to the "Let's Make a Deal" example, then some choice is just a gambling variation, an activity apparently much beloved by human brains.

And obviously as the people around here know, if you don't want to bother with "stressful choice," don't bother, using any number of secret techniques of not giving a shit. Pussy.

Now whether Americans are more stressed now...it could be, but they've also more time for self-dramatization with new cultural meanings and rewards for self-pitying narratives.

|6.16.05 @ 12:26PM|#

And obviously as the people around here know, if you don't want to bother with "stressful choice," don't bother, using any number of secret techniques of not giving a shit. Pussy.

Yes, but to achieve that, I have to choose between so many brands of anti-anxiety drugs!

drf|6.16.05 @ 12:32PM|#

"And obviously as the people around here know, if you don't want to bother with "stressful choice," don't bother, using any number of secret techniques of not giving a shit. Pussy.

Yes, but to achieve that, I have to choose between so many brands of anti-anxiety drugs!"


oh shit. that was funny. can you imagine that! "area man freaks out while deciding on which SSRI to use"

beautiful! dude! have a great day.
drf

gaius marius|6.16.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Yes, but to achieve that, I have to choose between so many brands of anti-anxiety drugs!

lol -- mr danimal, you're brilliantly demonstrating how even escapism isn't an escape from lawlessness.

Nathan|6.16.05 @ 12:37PM|#

Scwartz also fails to notice that the consequences for a bad consumer choice are nil. You can always return the jeans, any Starbucks will make you something new for free if you don't like what you ordered, California Pizza Kitchen lets you try any pizza, and if you don't like it, you can order something else for free, etc...

|6.16.05 @ 12:42PM|#

about Parentalism, Gaius says,

"why is this bad? isn't this often simply a rational deduction based upon experience?"

Yes, if they were willing to make this decision for themselves, however, that is rarely the case, as is demonstrated by the fact that this person assumes that everyone else needs or desires the limit of options.

Well, this person should speak for themselves. His anxiety has nothing to do with me, as my anxiety about cockroaches requires nothing of him.

Spoken in the tone of a true post-modern/hyperindividualist/emancipation-fetishist! ;)

Sam Grove|6.16.05 @ 12:45PM|#

Reminds me of a cartoon of two cavemen, sitting around a fire in a cave, gnawing on huge critter haunches: Says one happily: "It doesn't get any better than this!"

|6.16.05 @ 1:45PM|#

Here's a choice for 'ya:

Any man who obsesses over which freakin' jeans he's going to buy is a:

a). Wuss
b). Pansyass
c). Pantywaist
d). Low Grade Moron
e). All of the above

|6.16.05 @ 1:45PM|#

Oy.

When I want pants, I go to a department store. I look at the offered pants. I grab a pair that looks nice. I go try it on. If it fits nicely and looks good, I buy. If not, I try another pair or a different size.

Then, next time I need pants, I (*gasp!*) remember what I picked and get one or two pairs of that, with or without further exploration.

Somehow, this manages not to be intensely stressful.

gaius marius|6.16.05 @ 1:57PM|#

His anxiety has nothing to do with me, as my anxiety about cockroaches requires nothing of him.

i didn't know you feared cockroaches, mr wellfellow.

i think his anxiety does have something to do with you, and vice versa. we do live together, after all.

this is the quandary of libertarian vs conservative. the liberal finds it easy to live with a conservative because the conservative is, after all, choosing to do what they want, which is fine. the same cannot be said of the conservative, for whom law and social institutions are important -- and those institutions are on some level antithetical to personal choice.

a person who fears the consequences of lawless individual choice in diseducation/mythologizing, ideological entrenchment, social polarization and eventually violence and breakdown doesn't have the option of saying, "you should do this, but do what you want". it's why reactions to widespread social disorder are often obliquely authoritarian -- not conservative, in fact equally lawless as anarchy, but at least orderly.

gaius marius|6.16.05 @ 1:57PM|#

this manages not to be intensely stressful.

you are obviously male, mr .5b. :)

|6.16.05 @ 2:02PM|#

you are obviously male, mr .5b. :)

I don't think I'd ever indicated the opposite. Though "Erica the .5b" would be an even more obscure handle, I'm sure.

|6.16.05 @ 2:05PM|#

OK, Gaius, since that last post was short enough to read without my eyes losing their purchase on the sheer, capital-less surfaces...

If you really think human beings as a race don't have the mental wattage to handle choices and run their own lives, why do you think they deserve better than anarchy, violence, and breakdown?

|6.16.05 @ 2:07PM|#

And assume the appropriate smilie and/or exclamation point at the end of my next-to-previous post...

ed|6.16.05 @ 2:33PM|#

Or it could just be that Schwartz was kidding. He had a whole book to fill up, and those things require a LOT of words.

|6.16.05 @ 2:35PM|#

isn't this society largely made of cases of arrested development? and now they're going to -- what? -- suddenly exhibit the wisdom of solon?

I don't think that this society is "largely made of cases of arrested development." I think that that's what sells stories, so most stories you see are about how people are not growing up. But most people just quietly do so and get on with their lives, with little or no fanfare. Most people in this society are adults, with maybe more expectations for personal fulfillment than in previous times, but realistic in what they expect. They don't have to exhibit the wisdom of Solon; they just have to learn from mistakes. A friend of mine has the saying hung in her kitchen, "Persistence, not Perfection." I think that sums up maturity in a choice-filled society such as ours; you don't always have to make the right choice, but you always have to keep trying to find the right choice.

From what I've seen, you're not saying that an authoritarian society is better, just more stable. Which might turn out to be true. But it might not. I still think that we're entering uncharted territory in the present, and the past is no absolute guide to the future. It is good to study the past, so we can try to avoid the more egregious mistakes our ancestors made, but the past isn't our destiny. Things have changed in the present. Human nature hasn't changed radically, but the tools we have to meet the demands of that nature have. And maybe they've changed to such an extent that a civilization based on choice, rather than authority, is stable. Or metastable; not many are going to care if the civilization they're in lasts for five hundred years or forever. Either is long enough for one person, even one person with radically expanded lifespan.

|6.16.05 @ 2:37PM|#

If you really think human beings as a race don't have the mental wattage to handle choices and run their own lives, why do you think they deserve better than anarchy, violence, and breakdown?


Damn, Eric, that was a brilliant question. Other than children, who actually deserves to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity?

|6.16.05 @ 2:48PM|#

"i didn't know you feared cockroaches, mr wellfellow. "

oh, with all my heart, Gaius, with all my heart. Nothing more foul, nothing more ugly, and nothing so plentiful! Yeech!

|6.16.05 @ 3:01PM|#

"...social institutions are important -- and those institutions are on some level antithetical to personal choice"

OK, fair enough, Gaius, but if I were a conservative who valued those institutions, I would only want voluntary members.

Also,

"a person who fears the consequences of lawless individual choice in diseducation/mythologizing, ideological entrenchment, social polarization and eventually violence and breakdown"

Why should I think that these person's fears are valid? Some people fear homosexuals. So what? As I said, I have fears, too, but I don't have a right to infringe upon others to assuage them.

|6.16.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Y'know, Gaius, if big, muscular guys weren't allowed to leave their homes at night, my skinny little self could walk the streets without fear.

|6.16.05 @ 3:36PM|#

isn't this society largely made of cases of arrested development? and now they're going to -- what? -- suddenly exhibit the wisdom of solon?

I don't think you need to be as wise as Solon to buy pants. I don't think Solon even wore pants.

Anyway, it's interesting that you namedrop Solon. He was a distinctly unlibertarian thinker wasn't he?

|6.16.05 @ 4:15PM|#

I wonder if Schwartz has ever tried shopping for windpants or sweatpants? There are generally only four choices there: S,M,L,XL. Unfortunately, all four sizes are made for people 6'2". At 5'9", I get stressed at looking like a clown in such ill-fitting clothes.

|6.16.05 @ 4:20PM|#

the sort of funny thing here is that the cultural decay gaius decries today is the payoff of the years of often brutal order which came before.

i still find gaius the most intriguing poster on h+r.

|6.16.05 @ 4:28PM|#

This all reminds me of the debate around here over an attempt to deregulate (or at least less-regulate) the local phone carriers to get competition for local as well as long distance service. One of the arguments seriously raised against the proposal was that it would cause people a lot of stress having to compare the inevitable resulting multitude of service levels, prices and carriers! After all, the argument went on, look at how hard it is to pick a long distance carrier, people shouldn't have to go to that "trouble" for local phone service as well.

Lazlo|6.16.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Please, won't someone build on Danimal's early soda-flavors derail so I can talk about how much I like Coke Zero and Cherry Vanilla Diet Dr. Pepper?

Before I was old enough to avail myself of choice, my mom picked out all my clothes for me. It's a long trail paved with corduroy, velour and terri-cloth, littered with the charred remains of my pre-teen self-esteem. Compared to that I'd be happy to spend days picking out jeans at The Gap.

|6.16.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Choices don't make people miserable, people make themselves miserable.

When choices are outlawed, only outlaws will be miserable.

Sam Grove|6.16.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Can we not wonder if those who want someone to tell them what to do, to impose order, are not also seeking to avoid responsibility for their own unwillingness to accept the risks of making choices?

Much historical chaos is the result of dependency on imposed order. A child who never learns to choose and learn from his/her choices, grows into a non adult grownup.

Those who support collectivism, of any kind, often seek to avoid responsibility for their own participation in the world.

We can be mere intelligent animals, intelligencely responding to our environment, or we can become creative beings.
Imposed order inevitbly breaks down, because the power to impose is corrupting.

|6.16.05 @ 5:25PM|#

Of course, another theory is that Big Cola puts out so many variations of its product to hog shelf space and keep the smaller companies out.

Let�s see how many Coke products I can think of, off the top of my head:

Coke Classic
Diet Coke
Cherry Coke
Vanilla Coke
Coke w/ Lime
Coke w/ Lemon
Diet Cherry Coke
Diet Vanilla Coke
Diet Coke w/ Lime
Diet Coke w/ Lemon
Diet Coke w/ Splenda
C2
Coke Zero (not sure how this is different from Diet Coke)

That�s 13, and I probably forgot a few.

Lazlo|6.16.05 @ 6:07PM|#

Caffeine-Free Coke and Caffeine-Free Diet Coke.

Coke Zero (not sure how this is different from Diet Coke)

It's reformulated to taste more like regular Coke (e.g., more "bite"). Less aspartame, more acesulfame and potassium citrate.

The only other product that's suffered more brand creep than Coke is Oreos: Original, Golden Original, Double Stuf, Chocolate Creme, Double Delight Mint'n'Creme, Chocolate Fudge Covered, Chocolate White Fudge Covered, Chocolate Mint Fudge Covered, the seasonal Red/Orange/Purple creme varieties, Crumbs, Crumbles, Thin Crisps, Reduced Fat, Carb Well, preformed pie crust, the breakfast cereal and at least a half-dozen Mini versions on top of that. Oh yeah, and Golden Uh-Oh with Chocolate Creme, which sounds kinda dirty if you ask me.

|6.16.05 @ 7:25PM|#

Damn, Eric, that was a brilliant question. Other than children, who actually deserves to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity?

I believe in helping and protecting even idiots, as long as it's voluntary on their part and the helper's part. But if you really think humanity is a race of morons who are unable to run their lives...

|6.16.05 @ 10:35PM|#

uninformed consumers are uninformed gatekeeper-selectors. as with the media choice explosion,

I'm totally ignorant as to how my exhaust system works. Yet because of previous experience with Repair Shop A and Repair Shop B, in which I now know Shop A screwed me but Shop B was honest, I choose to have it inspected by Shop B. There you have it -- an uninformed consumer choosing a gatekeeper in a rational way.

When choosing information the accuracy of which will actually affect them (eg Does my entire exhaust system need to be replaced?), people tend to choose objective and helpful sources. It is when choosing information on things, the accuracy of which will have zero effect on them (eg Did Saddam have WMDs? Did Michael Jackson molest children?) that people select yes-men.

But I will give you this, gaius: labeling market diversification "limiting the marketplace" is a bit of genius I wouldn't have been able to turn in a million years.

|6.17.05 @ 4:19AM|#

If only there were some way that an uninformed consumer could become informed... like picking up a Consumer Reports buyers guide, or reading Edmunds before the ole car shopping trip, or looking up product reviews and ratings on the web, or looking into magazines that cover the topic at hand, or calling the Better Business Bureau, or reading the damn label, or hiring a personal shopper, or buying what the Queer Guys recommend the straight guys buy...

Gee, maybe the market is already providing a solution to the problem. Who woulda' thought?

|6.17.05 @ 7:47AM|#

when people are seeking en masse ways to opt out of or void those, talking about the responsibilities of citizenship and religion as though they were choices, the society isn't far from rupture and chaos.

Ah, so death to converts and emigrants, eh? Well, the good news is that the govts of Saudi Arabia and North Korea might have a PR job open for you.

Tell me, must a Palestinian child, raised by Wahabbist parents, follow through on his responsibilities as a militant Muslim and a citizen of Palestine by becoming a suicide bomber?

|6.17.05 @ 7:52AM|#

Crimethink-
I really admire your self-control, man. *I* wanted to ask about Germans who ignore their responsibilities to report Jews to the Gestapo, but God forbid I give anyone an excuse to shriek, "GODWIN!!!!"

|6.17.05 @ 7:57AM|#

Serious question for Gaius: which statement do you believe is closer to the truth:

A. Society exists to serve the needs of its people;

B. People exist to serve the needs of their society.

|6.17.05 @ 8:01AM|#

i think we're in the process of discovering over the long term that even an abusable institution is a far better solution to the problem of social stability that freiheit.

I hate to channel Gunnels here, but gaius, do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just anti-individualist wishful thinking? Have even you fallen prey to the ruinous media diversity that forces us to get our information from yes-men instead of The One Source of Truth? ;-)

Of course, you may be right that for the sake of internal social stability alone, one unimpeachable source of information is best. However, stability is not all that's necessary for the survival and prospering of a society; there needs to be a creative and adaptive element as well.

History is littered with the desiccated bones of societies so stable and rigid that they could not adapt to changing circumstance. This has been going on for all time, but never more dramatically than when a few relatively tiny but dynamic societies in Europe crushed virtually every traditional society in the world that got in their way.

|6.17.05 @ 8:03AM|#

Jennifer,

Thanks, but I fear an extension of Godwin's law covering militant Islam is not far off...

|6.17.05 @ 8:11AM|#

Crimethink-
The problem with Godwin is that even legitimate comparisons to the Nazis are dismissed by it. I remember, back when the Taliban was still in power and the story came out that they were requiring non-Muslims to wear certain identifying clothes, Internet commenters all screamed "Godwin" at anyone who compared this to the Jews' yellow stars.

|6.17.05 @ 8:28AM|#

Jennifer,

Unfortunately, the term Nazi has evolved from describing a specific, historical party and ideology, into an epithet to be hurled at anyone you disagree with. That's where I think Godwin is useful, since it forbids taking the name of Nazis or Hitler in vain, so to speak.

Of course, I don't think of it as a law, but as a strong presumption that comparing someone to a Nazi is an invalid argument.

|6.17.05 @ 8:32AM|#

Crimethink-
That's how it started, yes, but now it's evolved (or devolved?) into just another tool that makes it easy for people not to have to think. Is a Nazi comparison valid if the government steadily takes away civil liberties, as Hitler did in his early days of power? Is it valid if the government says or implies that members of a particular ethnic or religious group must be automatically under suspicion? Is it valid to point out that the Nazi morality for "Aryans" required women to stay home and raise babies while the menfolk went out into the real world?

|6.17.05 @ 8:46AM|#

Jennifer,

You're right. Godwin's law is for small minds unable to deal with complexity.

We must implement a final solution to dispose of those who appeal to it.

|6.17.05 @ 11:24AM|#

New law, called crimethink's law, states that no one shall be allowed to reference the name Godwin without swift and sure punishment.

"You're a nazi."

"You just violated Godwin's law."

"You just violated crimethink's law."

gaius marius|6.17.05 @ 12:17PM|#

If you really think human beings as a race don't have the mental wattage to handle choices and run their own lives, why do you think they deserve better than anarchy, violence, and breakdown?

"deserve" isn't a concept i really try to subscribe to, mr .5b. i think we can be more than animals only in law. and we should be, for it is in that way that we will do best what we all hope to -- which is, survive.

it isn't a moral judgement for me to pass on all of us.

|6.17.05 @ 12:54PM|#

Re: Godwin

Jon Stewart talked about this last night, the proliferation of Nazi references in political discourse. He showed footage of some Democratic Senator comparing something to Hitler. Then he showed footage of Rick Santorum (hee!) denouncing the Hitler comparison. Then he showed footage of Santorum (hee!) a month later making his own Hitler analogy on the floor of the Senate. (And, for the record, neither Hitler analogy was particularly apt.)

Stewart's conclusion was that when you make an unwarranted Hitler analogy you do a grave injustice to Hitler. That man worked hard to become the worst mass murderer of all time (and yes, I know, Stalin was in his league), and it's just not fair to dismiss the evil he did by comparing it to a Senate filibuster or whatever. Give the man some credit!

gaius marius|6.17.05 @ 1:14PM|#

From what I've seen, you're not saying that an authoritarian society is better, just more stable.

mr grylliade, it would be, i think -- few forms of society are less stable than populist. but authoritarianism isn't what i would choose. what i would choose i cannot. as mr wellfellow points out

if I were a conservative who valued those institutions, I would only want voluntary members.

that's what i'd want -- as i said in response to ms jennifer's question, the needs of the people are best met by a society comprised of people who genuinely believe that their purpose is to meet the needs of society -- because they know their needs will be met in union, not isolation. when mr crimethink then asks

do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just anti-individualist wishful thinking?

i cite history. this is far from the first time a human society has taken flight from its history and tradition for the lure of emancipation, grew to believe that they personally knew better than the wisdom of ages. indeed, there seems almost to be a trigger in a certain level of civilizational achievement that sparks people to quit listening to law and start following their heart. that trigger (if it exists) ensures the decline and fall of civilizations.

gaius marius|6.17.05 @ 1:23PM|#

i think the real problem with godwin's law is that hitler's image in our eyes is a lot different from hitler as he was.

people forget that he was seen by many in germany as a savior of civilization. that he pitched personal emancipation -- freedom -- through the vehicle of the moral discipline state in the struggle to manifest a glorious destiny against the forces of evil and the the shackles of tradition and law.

we think of a psychotic mass murderer -- which he was. but we forget all the rest. and now that a new slew of folks come to power preaching the same pitch, we look right at them and say, "naw. nothing like hitler. just the opposite. this guy's about freedom!" lol.

|6.17.05 @ 1:26PM|#

To paraphrase gaius, we don't see that even Sauron at first wore a fair-seeming guise.

gaius marius|6.17.05 @ 1:40PM|#

there needs to be a creative and adaptive element as well. History is littered with the desiccated bones of societies so stable and rigid that they could not adapt to changing circumstance.

i completely agree, mr crimethink. but that element -- the artist -- must be made to lead a difficult and unattractive life, subjected to constant institutional criticism and even oppression.

antithetical as that sounds prima facie to healthy development, it's essential to ensuring that new ideas are skeptically, rigorously, severely and repeatedly tested -- even at the expense of the artist's happiness or wellbeing -- before becoming anything like widespread practice. the best ideas will pass into institutional wisdom in time.

that isn't the system we have now. now, we are all artists. people have rejected tradition for individual choice -- and new ideas, often only by the virtue of being new and shocking, become widespread practice with amazing speed.

peoples' wants not being coincident with the people's needs, this is dangerous practice. my favorite horrifying example is the popular opinion polling which showed agreement by a wide margin with gen. macarthur during 1951 that the united states should launch a nuclear first-strike on major chinese metropolitan areas -- but there are many others where the unchecked people would've gladly committed suicide, cheering as the executioner's axe fell.

|6.17.05 @ 2:43PM|#

gaius-

Let's be honest about what will and won't destroy us:

31 ice cream flavors, 500 channels, 2 dozen types of coke, and 100 types of jeans will NOT destroy our civilization.

Endless deficit spending, regulations that choke innovation and wealth creation, over-extension in misguided wars, and the ever-expanding police state COULD destroy our civilization.

The remedies to those ills all happen to involve freedom and limited government.

Now, you can say if you like that Tradition and Virture are the "real" reasons why we'll benefit from frugal fiscal policy, restrained regulatory policy, cautious foreign policy, and respect for civil liberties. And I can say that Freedom is the "real" reason why we'll benefit from those policies.

And maybe it's all semantic or maybe it isn't. But I would submit that many of the adherents of the current regime claim to be big fans of Tradition and Virtue. I can't read a person's mind or judge a motive because there's too much room for insincerity or plain old confusion. I can only go by concrete things.

So spare me the BS about how freedom is going to destroy us all. Fiscal restraint will save us, whether it's brought about by somebody who calls himself a libertarian or somebody who calls himself a conservative. Deregulation will save us, whether it's done by somebody who says he's protecting entrepreneurs (the elite that you favor) or somebody who says he's doing it to protect consumer choice. A saner foreign policy will save us, regardless of the accompanying rhetoric.

Say what you want about motives, but you're complaining about rhetoric while the rest of us are worried about the real world.

|6.17.05 @ 2:44PM|#

"deserve" isn't a concept i really try to subscribe to, mr .5b. i think we can be more than animals only in law. and we should be, for it is in that way that we will do best what we all hope to -- which is, survive.

I'm a screaming minarchist, and I can agree with the necessity of law. But we survived without it as little more than particularly smart animals for hundreds of thousands of years. If we're capable of better than that, it's because we can handle choice and responsibility, not because we have law and tradition to try to mold us into a pack of animals who refrain from flinging poo most of the time...

|6.17.05 @ 3:08PM|#

Since this thread is about to disappear, I'm going to save my previous comment to gm and post it the next time an appropriate thread comes up.

|6.17.05 @ 3:46PM|#

So that's how you stay so fresh and pithy.

gaius marius|6.18.05 @ 11:47AM|#

Now, you can say if you like that Tradition and Virture are the "real" reasons why we'll benefit from frugal fiscal policy, restrained regulatory policy, cautious foreign policy, and respect for civil liberties. And I can say that Freedom is the "real" reason why we'll benefit from those policies.

tradition, mr thoreau -- the restrainst that is inherent in a society that can follow precedent -- is what saves one from these things. not freedom -- restraint. without restraint, people are merely animals.

the only question is whether that restraint is an inner moral question, or need be beaten into men by law to spite their moments of weakness. i say to you, the inner moral power of the individual is weak and vacillating. and if you count on it, it will betray you in greed and wildness. it is blind idealism to belive otherwise in the face of history.

we once kept institutions to protect law from our moral turpitude, to ensure that our vacillations would not, in a fit of temporary insanity, undo that which had been learned with such difficulty. but that time has passed. freedom is now the watchword -- and where man is freed of restraint and left on his own moral recognizance, disaster shortly follows.

this is where we are now. and libertarianism is a notion to knock down what little is left of that which could force restraint onto men. it is a sad, ironic joke that some truly believe an order which anyone would wish to have will arise from it.

But I would submit that many of the adherents of the current regime claim to be big fans of Tradition and Virtue. I can't read a person's mind or judge a motive because there's too much room for insincerity or plain old confusion. I can only go by concrete things.

watch not their words but their acts. they are clearly undermining any tradition they can get near to, in order to manifest their ideas. i couldn't care less what they say, mr thoreau. the current regime are thoroughgoing nietzscheans, without restraint of any kind. they appall me.

Fiscal restraint will save us, whether it's brought about by somebody who calls himself a libertarian or somebody who calls himself a conservative. Deregulation will save us, whether it's done by somebody who says he's protecting entrepreneurs (the elite that you favor) or somebody who says he's doing it to protect consumer choice. A saner foreign policy will save us, regardless of the accompanying rhetoric.

i'm amazed, mr thoreau, that anyone still believes that freedom will "save us" from this stuff. more freedom is what got you here! the paradox of freiheit gave you these problems -- half the people shedding responsibility onto government like burning clothes, half driven mad by the possibility of government power growing over them -- and the same half at that, with the other sleeping blissfully and stupidly!

people have never been more obsessed with freedom than they are now here -- on both sides, left and right! is it really difficult to see that? libertarianism itself as a political movement couldn't exist in any previous western age because none prior has been so consumed, so obsessed, so driven to madness with freiheit -- it's not accidental that the libertarian party began in the 1971, mr thoreau.

i have to say that libertarianism is almost farce, so over the top is it in comic irony. people talk about being responsible -- while rejecting any obligation to anything or anyone that is not themselves, every law mocked, every institution feared. as though being totally introverted and self-serving could be equated with responsibility! it is to laugh, mr thoreau, to think that anyone subscribe to such thought without soon seeing its irony. the paranoia about obligation here is so thoroughgoing as to make it a pinnacle achievement of selfishness. and yet, everyone dreamily believes that, if everyone ignores one another, no one need care for anyone else and it will all magically work out because of locke's clockwork.

i tell you, locke was a moral philosopher who knew the dire need of law and governance. he understood that markets worked only through the force of strong law which allowed them to exist. he would've vomited at the sight of libertarianism in the context of this society, dying as it is of freedom, all but crying out for order to be imposed with an iron hand upon those who could not see fit to order themselves becuase they fell in love with freiheit.

what nth degree of emancipation does postmodern man need to consider himself free? a level beyond that which sustains order in a human population, it seems.