Reflecting on this point by @pluralistic: THREAD 1/n
"The whole point of the conservative project is to take away choices, and corral us into “preferences” that we disprefer. Eliminate no-fault divorce, suppress the vote, gerrymander the electoral map, cram a binding arbitration clause into every terms of service and a noncompete into every labor contract, buy up all your competitors, DRM-lock all the media, ban contraception and abortion, ..."
2/n
"... and you’ve got a world of partners you can’t divorce, politicians you can’t vote out, companies you can’t sue, jobs you can’t quit, services you can’t leave, books and music you can’t move, and pregnancies you can’t prevent or terminate."
The point is kind of obvious, but Amartya Sen, in "An idea of justice" and "Development as freedom" uses SUBSTANTIVE – as opposed to formal – choice as the basis for value.
3/n
Substantive choices are those choices where none of the alternatives is prejudicial for the person making it. For example, people are formally free to not engage on the labor market: no one is forcing you at gunpoint to take a job. However, that is only a substantive freedom if you are independently well off. If you need to work to survive, your freedom is formal, but not substantive.
4/n
According to this view, taking away choices (Cory's description of the conservative project) means DESTROYING ECONOMIC VALUE by Sen's definition. A high-performing economy is one where people have a lot of choices.
Which means the conservative project is to build a LOW-performing economy.
As I said, obvious, but writing it down helps me fix it in my head. Bear with me.
5/n
Sen's idea of substantive freedom is epistemologically different from that of well-being. With my freedom, what matters is that *I* think I am free. Others' opinions matter little. My favourite example is slavery.
Slave owners used to defend slavery by claiming that slaves were valuable and valued and well taken care of. Being slaves to a good master was surely a very good outcome for them!
6/n
However, the argument did not hold water as slaves constantly tried to escape, and would have left en masse in the absence of cohercion.
In Senian terms, slave economies are (very) low-performing.
7/n
In a similar way, the enclosures of the commons in England at the end of the 1700s (and in much of Africa a century later) led to the creation of an army of proletarians who, unable to live off the land, had no choice but to take nightmarish jobs. Again, no substantive choice, low-performance economies.
8/fin
So, whenever somebody tells you something is for the best – especially if they are making an economic argument: think austerity policy, selling off public housing, increasing military spending – always ask yourself: is this decision extending or compressing the substantive freedoms of people?
There is not always a straightforward answer: some decisions trade off freedom today for freedom tomorrow. But the QUESTION is straightforward, and we would do well to always ask it.
Alberto Cottica
Lunar Dad
Matthias Krämer
twodimes