>On 3/4/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I know what you are getting at. Choice is a poor substitute for
>>freedom. What's more, I think people are getting a damn sick and
>>tired of having choice foisted on them at every turn. I know I am.
>>I'm sick of telemarketers ringing me up and offering me choices of
>>this and that. I'm sick of having to absorb and comprehend all the
>>different options of all the myriad brands of every product.
>>
>>
>
>That's interesting. My perspective is a bit different. I think there's
>never enough information. And not enough choices outside a narrow
>range.
>
Yes, absolutely.
But there's also a real issue that there are circumstances in which choice is a lie.
--If I get sick and need medical care, 1) I will not necessarily be rational enough to choose 2) I will not have the expertise to choose 3) I will not have time to choose 4) the "sellers" routinely do not and sometimes cannot estimate what the expense will be. Therefore choice is essentially a no op in this situation, except for the exception ....like plastic surgery, which is entirely elective and mostly not covered by insurance anyway.
-- Right now in Oakland, parents are supposed to "shop" for their children's schools. The idea here is that everyone winds up getting what they want/need, but the reality is that certain schools will not accept special needs or kids of color and also that a lot of parents are in no condition to judge which school their kids should attend ...because they are either illiterate or non-English speaking, and also a lot of the schools suck. So, there are only a few good schools -- everything else is trash, but you have a "choice" about the trash you get, so everything is OK. The more primitive idea, that every kid is entitled to a good education, is rejected as inferior to the shopping experience.
Joanna