John said:
Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
burger and fries.
Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to
choose has been limited.
That is obvious.
Yes, but it's not the whole story. Suppose that Alice has two $1 bills
and she could choose to buy a burger, fries or a shake, each of which
costs $1, and further suppose that Bob has no money. Then Alice could
choose from one of 36 possible futures (as each dollar could supply
one of {burger, fries, shake} to one of {Alice,Bob}, so she could
choose, for example, a burger for herself and fries for Bob or a
burger and fries for herself). Alice has quite a lot of freedom, but
Bob has none.
Suppose George insists that Alice gives $1 to Bob. Then Alice can't
choose any of the 36 possible futures. The most she can do is to pick
one of six "partial futures", for example the one in which she has at
least one burger. Bob can also choose one of six partial futures, for
example the one in which he has a shake. The outcome is that Alice and
Bob collectively choose one of the 36 total futures. Alice's freedom
has been curtailed a bit, but Bob has been given some freedom in
compensation.
I guess that you would argue that Alice's two $1 bills are hers, and
that if she wants to use them to give Bob some freedom she could
choose to give one or both to him but that George isn't justified in
forcing her to. I further guess that Nick would argue that it's more
fair for George to make Alice give the dollar to Bob as the gain in
freedom for Bob outweighs the loss of freedom for Alice.
Rich
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
