Greg Detre
@20.15 on 22/1/01
lack of money � lack of freedom
denied by Berlin + Rawls
freedom vs resources/means
usually reject premises 1+4
freedom = freedom of choice??? to act/from interference
choices available, choices in your means
legal vs effective freedom
money lowers the barriers to interference
but interference is universal legal
freedom to buy something vs freedom to earn more in his job
definition of freedom - +ve vs �ve freedom � choice vs act???
what is (the function of money)???
what about fat people from being barred from the Olympics???
the interference is universally applied, but contains criteria
poor people are allowed to have the swater, but not also cake/supper
freedom for the greatest number
better in liberal capitalism than authoritarian socialism/communism
money is anonymous, non-disseminatory
why is money different from strength or brains? Marx � it�s social power in an object
the thing about money is that it (and the freedom it confers) can change hands freely
dichotomy/tradeoff between effective + legal
conceptual contrast is empty. is ONLY a normative argument
I would rather live in a more legally free society � calculus (not individual), hence fits in with Rawls, because it�s overall fairer � it�s a just freedom