The Cost of the Freedom to Choose

In game design and education, there are discussions about how much freedom to give the user/player/student. Here's the catch I don't see represented in the discussions, if we don't govern ourselves, others have to for the sake of the group and organization of the whole. The phrase that comes to mind is "With great power comes great responsibility." Freedom is the power to choose and act, and so I think there is a responsibility in making any choice. That's the cost, but there is more to this than just a cost.

Leadership is a direct result of giving away responsibility. The question is, how much responsibility do you retain? Blindly following is taking no responsibility for your actions and choices. If you listen, ask questions, think about what you hear and make a choice, you keep most of the responsibility of the choice. When a group gives a person, or group, authority they are giving responsibility to make choices and take actions. In this way a good leader is a servant to those who have given them responsibility. This is also the value of a follower, especially those who keep reevaluating the worthiness of the leader and continue to follow them.

I know this may seem a little offensive to some, but most people don't want responsibilities while they want freedoms. It doesn't work. It's the same as wanting to eat your cake and still have a whole cake. A people that want freedom to do whatever they want, but don't responsibly use their freedom will over time make a government become overbearing, ineffective and/or crumble. All that comes from the request to be allowed to do whatever they want, because that requires rules be applied to everybody else, but not that person.

I don't mean to be political so much as observant of the interactions of freedoms and governance. I even have some math to back this up. If there is a group of 6 equally effective people, who spend 50% of their effort improving themselves and 50% hindering others, everybody in that group will have 5 people putting 10% into hindering them, countering the 50% they use to better themselves. Now, that is actually not fully accurate, as having 5 people trying to hinder one person, even with equal effort to improve and hinder the one, the one is out numbered and likely out resourced. That's if we try to hinder each other, but if we unintentionally hinder each other it could be more or less hindering, because we aren't paying attention to it. That's not being considerate of others or acting in a responsible way.

That example put the individual into the negative, but what if those same people tried to help instead of hinder each other? That would be acting in a socially responsible manner. My math says that 50% plus at least 50% is over 100%. So, hypothetically, the group of individuals helping each other makes each individual more effective than an individual on their own.

Yes, I know that who thing is oversimplified, but the point still stands. Networking, word of mouth, social media and other ways of a person using their contacts to help others are being recognized as a big deal, and have been for a long time. What one person can't do with all their might can many times be done with the help of one, two or more people helping with part of their strength.

So, when I look at problems of freedom and governance, I now wonder if maybe it's a matter of people shirking responsibilities. Is it because we don't want to be responsible for our emotional and mental state that we look for disorders, diseases and the medications to counter them? Is it because we want to not have to pay attention to our safety that we seek legal protection from our own stupidity?

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

The Cost of the Freedom to Choose

View Blog Reactions