i have an interesting thought experiment here. i got this from a book by peter singer. theres a handful of thought experiments that i think perfectly frame the nature of a philosophical problem and this is one. ive thought about it a ton and want to know what others think.
guess i dont really need to preface it but to me this perfectly illuminates the issue of both the collective vs the individual and authoritarianism vs non-authoritarianism when it comes to thinking about your own view of politics and society and how things would be ideally.
we all live in a town. its 1000 people + we all drive to work every day to the city that is twenty minutes away. the thing is since we all drive (we are free to choose bus or driving, no one takes the bus) instead of it taking twenty minutes it takes 90 minutes because of traffic
im at the doctor and just got some
p a p e r w o r k
hold up
p a p e r w o r k
hold up
alright so, we were all free to make a decision individually but collectively we have done something kind of stupid. so we have a big meeting and all agree to take the buses and now we all get to work in 20 minutes, its way better.
heres where the problem comes in. a few people realize that now there is no traffic and they start driving their cars to work again, getting the benefit of no traffic plus the convenience of door to door travel. [...]
this threatens the whole system because if more people start doing this we’ll just be right back where we started with a ton of traffic and everyone driving. so, what do you do about that? i have thought about this a lot and i think your answer reveals a lot about your politics.
on one side you have, well you cant do anything. just let them drive. but then ultimately everyone, the full 1000 people, are all going to be stuck in traffic again every day because a few people didnt want to take the bus. id say this is a very individual conception of freedom.
you could say everyone is free in that system but at the same time people arent “free” to make collective decisions and control how their society runs (debatable if they have this right) so its individual freedom at the expense of the collective.
on the other end, you could just arrest the people who drive. if it was a one day in jail penalty they would stop doing it immediately. but then youre kind of running an authoritarian state, arent you. well, maybe its worth it (1000 peoples needs vs the desires of a few).
i really like this example because its hard to wiggle out of. u might say, maybe we will just set up a toll booth with a high fee to discourage driving. but then the rich will be able to pay it, the poor wont, and ur just creating a two tiered system punishing those who cant pay
it just interestingly raises the question of if the wealthy should be able to pay for this added convenience, you could flip it and say its not fair because youre just making sure the poor cant drive, when you could have just forced everyone to play by the same rules (no driving)
i dont really have a strong opinion at this time. sometimes i come down hard on just forcing everyone to take the bus but then we are basically in a slightly communist dictatorship arent we. but then, i dislike the rich being able to buy the right to drive. i have no clear answer
like i said i just really like this hypothetical because imo it perfectly illustrates so many subtle political problems that are actually foundational to any ideas about how we should run society. im interested in any answers people have 🤔
lots of good answers here. honestly i cant tell if altering the infrastructure defeats the initial purpose of the thought experiment or not as a study in individual “freedom” vs the collective good, or if thats part of the point, that these conflicts can potentially be mitigated
