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.
Alberto Cottica
twodimes