David Post at Volokh has a good example of a view of whether someone is “free” to do something that will strike most libertarians (including myself) as nonsensical. Something like this is believed by most proponents of “positive rights”. The classical liberals likely based some of their understanding on a belief in free-will. Unlike Bryan Caplan, I find that notion incoherent although I still like his “gun to the head test” for determining limited potential vs volition. Part of my issue with that conception of freedom is that it “proves too much”. If every situation is unfree, there is no use for the concept of freedom as a contrast. I think Matthew Mueller may have been inching toward something like that (and Jeffrey Friedman may have already crossed that line long ago) before he gave up blogging. Economics tells us that we face trade-offs for every action we take. In that sense we are not “free” to take actions with no tradeoffs. What kind of tradeoff is severe enough to be deemed important seems rather subjective. The gun test handles issues of sheer physical impossibility, but there’s room to expand that a bit, especially if we extend the time-frame from the momentary execution of an act to incorporate possible reactions. I may be free to steal something of yours, but if it will reliably taken back from me we can exclude more than momentary possession of it (presumably the point of grabbing it in the first place) from my choice set. Am I not free to possess something I must pay for? That I would see as just another example of the usual tradeoffs. There is a set bar I have to pass. That is distinct from a situation in which there are other agents aware of my actions dedicated to stopping them and willing to set an arbitrarily high cost for my taking such actions. It does seem to me that there is something psychologically distinct from fees and fines, though it also seems conceivable that there is something about the latter that distinguishes it from the former (perhaps an effect that shows up after repeated iterations showing that you regard the fine as simply a fee).
January 25, 2009
Advertisement
January 26, 2009 at 3:06 am
Enjoying your blog as always.
Fyi, you may enjoy a q&a with Gregory Cochran that I’m running at my blog this week:
http://www.2blowhards.com/
January 26, 2009 at 9:02 am
“Free will” is a cipher. Rather we should talk about people making choices, which indeed they do. How those decisions are determined in a cosmic sense isn’t relevant.
Just because we acknowledge the concept of causality doesn’t mean that, for example, we should stop punishing people who commit crimes because they “didn’t have a choice” to commit them.
That’s monkeytalk.
January 26, 2009 at 10:39 am
I attended a lecture by a philosopher who actually put to the test the idea that – in this case, involving organ sales – exploited people have “no choice” but to sell their organs for chump change. He looked at the empirical evidence for this in India, where extremely few impoverished actually took up the opportunity to sell their organs, and those who did were not necessarily among the MOST poor.
This is one way to gauge free will vs. constraints.
January 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I think you are correct that “What kind of tradeoff is severe enough to be deemed important seems rather subjective.” I’ve talked to some other thinkers about this, but I hadn’t heard an answer that I was satisfied with.
For example, I asked David Friedman about this when I had a talk with him once, and he said that he thinks of freedom as not being restricted from doing anything that you have a right to do. This definition avoids such notions as a “freedom to murder”, for example, which is nice, but unfortunately, it relies on a concept of rights.
I guess it isn’t a concept one can nail down. Out of curiosity, do you (TGGP, or anyone who shares this view) still use the term when talking about politics?
“Just because we acknowledge the concept of causality doesn’t mean that, for example, we should stop punishing people who commit crimes because they “didn’t have a choice” to commit them.”
Yeah, I would say especially because we acknowledge the concept, since we know it is part of the determination process. It is hard to imagine the point of punishment in a universe where agents don’t base their decisions on what has come before.
Quick tangent: Matthew Mueller is mentioned in the post, and I see Dain has posted a comment. Small world – I think I may be going to a seminar with them this summer.
January 26, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I forgot to link to one of my favorites:
Greene & Cohen’s For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. It explains why even once we accept determinism we’ll still punish people much as we did before.
I think I still use the term “freedom” though I can’t remember when the last time was.
January 27, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Michael Blowhard, sorry for not getting around to despamming my filter earlier. I heard about the interview from GNXP and Sailer, and my hat’s off to you. Cochran is a hell of a lot more worth listening to than most talking heads.
January 28, 2009 at 11:23 am
“exploited people have “no choice” but to sell their organs for chump change”
Of course they have choices! They might be unpleasant ones, with no outcomes they would prefer, but they make choices between the options.
January 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm
No choice implies zero options. If organ selling is banned and that choice is removed what are they left with and why wasn’t that option counted before?