Re: How far do we go?; Henwood's view of free choice

[Colin Danby <danbyc@xxxxxxx>]

Re Michael:

> how do you go with libertarianism?  Should speed limits be enforced?

There is a difference between full-blown Libertarianism, which has a
very peculiar social ontology, and a small-l libertarian critique which
asks how much do you really want to try to control behavior.  There's
obviously no bright line.  Yes to speed limits.  But prohibition of
alcohol would save lives too, and I doubt many on the list would support
that.

Re Eugene:

> The world we live in doesn't give us choices of behavior.

Come on.  You may not have the choices you want, but you make choices
all the time, like whether to respond to this thread.

> Doug's
> position simply is neo-classical economics about consumer behavior --

Nothing Doug said remotely implies neoclassical economic theory, or even
independent utility functions, if that's what you have in mind.

> we are totally entwined, one with another.

How lovely!  But surely even in our entwinings we have some choice...

> We impose consumption on each other, and are in turn imposed upon.

I've half a mind to start smoking again just to show that Michael's
disapproval of it does not determine my actions -- but wait!  If I smoke
I'm a dupe of big tobacco, if I don't I'm a pawn of Naderite scolds.
(What shall we say of old Ho Chi Minh and his Salems?  Of Rodchenko's
cigarette ads?  Do you really prefer the post-cigar Fidel?)

In any social world I can imagine, my choices are going to be influenced
by others' choices.  There seems to be this weird belief in a number of
posts that just because we are much-influenced, we are therefore
helpless.  Or perhaps the idea is we do bad things like smoke and drink
too much because capitalism makes us.  Do people think advertising is
that effective?

Best, Colin