What matters to us a great deal is our own ability to act and the stuff we need to be able to do those actions. We often think of the ability to act in terms of freedom and that does make sense, but "freedom" can mean something different in the abstract than it does in reference to our own individual ability to act. "Freedom" in the abstract is a potential condition. It is very important that the social and political systems work in a way that creates those potential conditions. Translating that potential condition into an actuality, though, is what is crucial to each of us as an individual - and that is where the stuff we need to actually act when there are conditions of potential freedom is crucial. I like to think of the nexus of the potential freedoms and the stuff to act on that potential as functional autonomy. Functional autonomy is what matters to almost all of us more than an abstract potential condition of freedom.

How does functional autonomy play out in a typical representative democracy with a government regulated free market economy? Let's consider the demand side of a free market economy - specifically, the labor demand market. If there is more supply of labor than demand for labor, then there are going to be many people who want to work but will not find jobs. Without a job, they will be less able to obtain material things to be able to take advantage of the potential freedom that the social, political and economic systems allow. IOW, if you don't have a job because there is a greater supply of people seeking jobs than there are jobs then you have significantly less functional autonomy. Beyond that, in a market where labor supply outstrips labor demand, even those who get jobs will have to take reduced compensation for their labor - once again reducing functional autonomy.

What about the owner of capital (a category of material stuff) in a market where there is a greater supply of labor than demand for labor? If they are active in markets where they are making a profit, then the owner of capital can increase profits by lowering wages while still charging a price the market will bear. Those extra profits can be translated into greater functional autonomy for the owner of the capital.

In general, the owners of capital have greater functional autonomy than do those who labor for the owner of the capital even though they may all live in a political systems where they enjoy the same potential of freedom.

I do believe that people who use a lot of individual initiative, work hard and take risks should be rewarded with more material wealth (if that is what they want as a return for their efforts), but there are a great many reasons to limit those rewards in the kind of social, political and economic systems we have now. One of those reasons is that potential for freedom isn't as important to most people as is functional autonomy. If we don't limit the rewards due to those who work harder and take risks, there will arise a subset of those people who have so much wealth that their functional autonomy allows them to manipulate the political system so much by their influence that large swathes of the society end up with greatly diminished functional autonomy in spite of the abstract potential of freedom.

I know there are a great many oversimplifications in this formulation; e.g., one of the crucial things for many people in being able to have functional autonomy is their ability to call on social networks to aid them. But I'm hoping that talking about this notion of functional autonomy may stimulate some deeper discussion about the meaning of freedom.

Good luck with this one.

A nice explanation of the growing income gap's danger. An explanation that is playing out before our eyes. I didn't outline all your points, but one that is important to me is the potential loss to society that occurs as greater numbers of people endure less functional autonomy, i.e., ideas emerging from a large segment of society are stifled because an environment that nurtures those ideas no longer exists.

Maybe I should give a more concrete example to illustrate the difference between freedom in the abstract and functional autonomy. We all have the freedom to use public highways and streets to drive our cars to thousands of different destinations. If you don't have enough money to buy a car, keep it maintained and pay for gas, then this freedom is an abstraction - not something you can actualize. Of course, even if you don't have money for a car or gas you still have the freedom to walk on many streets and highways, but functionally you have much less ability to use public thoroughfares than if you had a car and gas. That is, you have less functional autonomy.

Maybe I shouldn't have cast the issue in terms of functional autonomy being more important than abstract freedom - abstract freedom is the soil that is absolutely essential for functional autonomy to grow and flourish. But I do believe that for each of us at the bottom line, what we care most deeply about is the amount of functional autonomy we have.


Edit: A note - I posted this before reading August's comments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2012 01:03PM by Ted King.

The pressure to conform is incredibly strong. Freedom in the sense of autonomy of belief and action nearly always takes a backseat to this pressure.

An example: I walked into a movie theatre with my wife and some friends 11 years ago. She was very pregnant and it was very hot and I had a bottle of water in my pocket for her to drink as and when she needed it. We purchased tickets and went to the stub checking line. The very large and somewhat mean looking chap (300lb 6'4 security dude with pseudo-cop uniform) told me that I couldn't keep the water which he'd seen sticking out my pocket. I very politely but firmly told him why I had the bottle and that I was going to keep it.
The look on his face, that someone had dared to challenge his authority in matters pertaining to who gets to keep bottles of water on their person was matched by the faces of our friends, who were equally amazed that someone would challenge a "rule" like this especially when it was being enforced by such an imposing figure.
My wife, used to me being me, was entirely unsurprised.
My point is that we are all free at any given time to do what we want, but in so many ways, most of which we aren't even aware of, we are bound by convention.
The gun issue, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me on this forum, is utterly bound by convention. The arguments have been bandied back and forth for decades apparently, with no real advances being made. It is conventional wisdom that trying to approach the issues again is pointless. (Those who have told me this, or made arguments to this effect, know who they are and I hold no enmity towards you...why would I?)

I said before that the more someone is trying to convince you that you are free, the more likely they are to be taking freedoms from you.

In a Capitalist system, everyone is slave to the market. Even the owners of the means of production. They are beholden to the owners of their stock. They are slaves to making money. They seem freer than the peons who work for them, who turn their labour into profit, but they are not. It is true that they have a higher level of functional autonomy than the jobless person or the wage slave, but they are still playing the conventional game. They have abnegated their freedom for comfort and stability. These people who invariably become conservative in spirit as they age (see previous reference to Churchill on this), are not free.
Of course, as the owners achieve more wealth and acquire the symbols of prosperity, they are seen by their underlings as aspirational examples. And so down the chain it flows, the American Dream.

Quote
Ted King
I do believe that people who use a lot of individual initiative, work hard and take risks should be rewarded with more material wealth (if that is what they want as a return for their efforts), but there are a great many reasons to limit those rewards in the kind of social, political and economic systems we have now. One of those reasons is that potential for freedom isn't as important to most people as is functional autonomy. If we don't limit the rewards due to those who work harder and take risks, there will arise a subset of those people who have so much wealth that their functional autonomy allows them to manipulate the political system so much by their influence that large swathes of the society end up with greatly diminished functional autonomy in spite of the abstract potential of freedom.

Ted, I would take issue to this portion of your post. I don't think the risk-takers are the ones who need their rewards limited, I would argue that the established owner of capital is the one who's rewards could be limited. The risk taker is putting it all on the line and therfore deserves the reward, but the established owner of capital is putting out little risk while enjoying a huge reward. Look at the CEO's of well-established companies, they are mostly riding along and guiding the vessel, the vessel, being so huge, won't suddently fail.

Then again, this also coincides with my views on copyright. I don't thinnk that the copyright should exist longer than the life of the author, if even that. Why should the family or estate keep on getting the rewards that the original risk-taker, the author, took? Let them create their own works and earn their own reward. Even limiting the copyright to a lesser period of time would motivate the author to create new works in order to keep his rewards for creating the work coming.

Quote
August West
I didn't outline all your points, but one that is important to me is the potential loss to society that occurs as greater numbers of people endure less functional autonomy, i.e., ideas emerging from a large segment of society are stifled because an environment that nurtures those ideas no longer exists.

Yep, society in general isn't optimizing its economic output if, because of factors beyond a person's control, they have less functional autonomy and cannot realize their full individual potential.

Quote
Manlove
The pressure to conform is incredibly strong. Freedom in the sense of autonomy of belief and action nearly always takes a backseat to this pressure.

Peer pressure is another one of the factors, along with the ability to call on social networks for aid that I mentioned, that has a big impact on functional autonomy. It is, though, at least a factor that can usually be more under a person's control than many economic factors that affect functional autonomy.

Quote
Manlove
In a Capitalist system, everyone is slave to the market. Even the owners of the means of production. They are beholden to the owners of their stock. They are slaves to making money. They seem freer than the peons who work for them, who turn their labour into profit, but they are not. It is true that they have a higher level of functional autonomy than the jobless person or the wage slave, but they are still playing the conventional game. They have abnegated their freedom for comfort and stability. These people who invariably become conservative in spirit as they age (see previous reference to Churchill on this), are not free.

It is true that people with a lot of functional autonomy can make decisions that actually reduce their ability to act freely. Ironically, though, that is choice is a free choice. But the decision to raise children responsibly also means fairly radically reducing one's ability to act freely, but that isn't a bad thing. I do agree, though, that some wealthy people get so wrapped up in the pursuit of wealth that they actually end up with a lot less functional autonomy. But that is a free choice they make. Someone with very little functional autonomy due to the lack of money to start with usually don't have the option of making that choice.

Quote
Sam3
I don't think the risk-takers are the ones who need their rewards limited, I would argue that the established owner of capital is the one who's rewards could be limited. The risk taker is putting it all on the line and therfore deserves the reward, but the established owner of capital is putting out little risk while enjoying a huge reward. Look at the CEO's of well-established companies, they are mostly riding along and guiding the vessel, the vessel, being so huge, won't suddently fail.

Very often investment capital is absolutely essential for wealth creation because the person with the creative vision doesn't have sufficient capital to realize the vision. There ought to be rewards to the capital investor for having a crucial role in making the wealth creation possible. Also, the amount of risk an investor takes varies quite a bit depending on the circumstances of the investment. But I do agree that too often people get wealth benefits all out of proportion to the value that they actually contribute.

Quote
Sam3
Then again, this also coincides with my views on copyright. I don't thinnk that the copyright should exist longer than the life of the author, if even that. Why should the family or estate keep on getting the rewards that the original risk-taker, the author, took? Let them create their own works and earn their own reward. Even limiting the copyright to a lesser period of time would motivate the author to create new works in order to keep his rewards for creating the work coming.

This gets into the notion of "merit" that I am planning on writing a post about.