opportunity cost

we have the austrian school to thank for the seemingly irrefutable reductiveness of the alternative cost theory. at least marshall and his ilk pointed out that the opportunity cost argument works only if resources are fixed, ceterus paribus, so to speak. (see opportunity cost doctrine)

what this means for our dilemma of choice is circularity and oversimplification, for our own sanity or selfishness. we make and fix our own choices as black and white, cost and worth, so that we can conveniently avoid thinking about the possibilities we cannot easily account for, or the other responsibilities we might otherwise have to take.

in other words, when we simplify into pragmatics, we don't have to feel bad justifying our clearly 'sensible' choices. sensible to us and to all others who buy into the alienating postmodern outlook.

unable to choose

one: who decided that cost and worth was the best way to make choices? and by that we mean with respect to self-interest. as opposed to morality, or greater good, or some other ideal (oscaraustin suggests responsibility). no one advocates making an ethical pros and cons list, ever.

two: some have argued that choice disempowers, not simply because of the paradox of having many options, or the flux of changing circumstances, but that the existence of various valid options diminishes the soundness of each individual one. compellingly and truly, the grass is always validly greener. how does one handle asking whether one can ever afford to forego the roads not taken?

cost and choice

the problem with seeing every possibility as choice is that it all boils down to cost and worth. if one chooses to quit one's job, one foregoes x thousand a month, but gains peace of self or sanity of mind; if one gives up a relationship for another, it becomes almost a compare/contrast list to weigh and measure.

firstly, it's all reductive (i suspect somewhere in our life management approach this theory seems to have insidiously snuck in as sensible decision-making strategy, being able to weigh the pros and cons).

secondly, it seems to empower the self in availing the choice, makes one feel in control of the situation if one can lay out both sides of the issue.

there's a catch. still more on this.

choice

one's belief in the opportunity to choose seems fundamental, even if one is unlikely to ever choose such an option due to constraints of whatever sort. choosing a shampoo, a car, a job, a partner, to break a promise, to break a heart, to be happy, to poke one's eyes out - apparently for some the belief that these are all available options seems to give assurance that they are in control of their own situation.

even if the reality of their choice is patently untrue.

more on this.

mainstream lifestyles

apart from alternative lifestyles, even mainstream choices suffer from self-centred or worse, self-righteous positioning: older singles amongst married friends or vice versa, the lone committer in a world of happy swinging singles; dinkies pooh-poohing the tied-down pace of new mums and dads versus the childless couple at kiddie birthday parties, and other polarities.

again what i object to is the, and i repeat, self-righteous, prejudice, the need to either tyrannise a majority position as rightful status quo, or defend a minority position as non-conformist independence.

it's all perspective and timing.

la la land

it seems to be that alternative lifestyle people, perhaps by virtue of the fact that they have chosen the alternative, behave in life and love as if all common rules of sensibility, thought, decency and rationality does not apply to them. with hazardous consequences for those they come in contact with.

while i appreciate the beauty of anarchy, alienation and alternative, such behaviour smacks of mere selfishness in a different guise.

oscaraustin will know what i mean.