Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
As I have read it from the previous thread, freedom of choices is simply freedom to choose what you wish to buy, that is, to have as many of each category to choose from as possbile.
I don't think that's quite right. Freedom of choice is, of course, having the right to decide which choice to make from among those given. Should I get a PC or a Mac? Should I buy a Ford, Chrysler or Chevy? Or should I buy a foreign make? RCA or Zenith? AT&T or Verizon? These kinds of choices are important to consumers, and having the competition helps to benefit the quality and reliability of the products. If one brand of car falls apart after a couple of years, sooner or later people will stop buying them. If a particular brand of TV requires constant repairs, who's going to want to buy that TV?

How many here remember when there was only one phone company? If you had a phone in your home, it belonged to Ma Bell, and you rented it. True, they were generally reliable, built to last, but they were hardly fashionable, and any improvements were developed at a snail's pace. When the government broke up the phone company, creating competition, the development of new styles and kinds of phones literally exploded. Prices dropped, innovation grew, and we now have individualized phones with more computing power in them than NASA had to put men on the moon.

Do we NEED dozens of different brands of canned string beans? Probably not. But do the corporations have the right to try to sell their own brands? Of course. And if their brand is better, they will succeed.

While I can see that some competition can be useful, I do not believe that an overwhelming amount of stuff equals freedom, not can I see it as a right.
While I can agree that we don't have a right to expect an overwhelming amount of products, those who are making those products do have the right to try to market them. THAT is freedom. And we can either buy or not buy. THAT is freedom as well.

To me, freedom and democracy means something like having a lot of influence on your own life, in all ways, within reasonable boundaries, such as not oppressing or hurting others. It means being able to choose your life-style, your sexuality, your religion - things that are important for you.
Exactly. But we have to accept responsibility with freedom. We cannot expect to impose our choices on everyone else. They also have freedom to choose. We cannot do just as we please if it will endanger others. We cannot take whatever we want because it impinges on others rights. Everyone's freedom is necessarily restricted by the freedoms of those around us.

How is it upheld?
Our freedoms are upheld by mutually acceptable laws which, of necessity, can limit some freedoms in order to preserve our overall freedom.

Is commercialism a nessecary part of it?
In an ideal world, probably not. Everyone would work to do what needs to be done, without thought of compensation, and everyone would receive what they need to survive, without worry about the cost. We don't live in an ideal world, though, so I think commercialism is necessary, yes. We get paid for our services (wages) and we pay for what we need or want. Competition among corporations helps to keep the cost of buying those things we want lower. Attracting customers to their product is a necessity for competitors, a necessary part of commercialism. But ultimately, the power is in the hands of the consumer. The trick, and the difficulty, is in getting consumers to use that power intelligently. Watching how people throw their money away, buying the biggest, newest, fanciest products, makes me wonder if there is any intelligence there at all!