Free choice is a strange proposition:
You can have App, And, Agg, or Azl gadget – which will you fancy choosing?
The choice elements contain only positives, and neglect to suggest, not even in a wide-brash sort of way, that you can have None. This deletion from the choice sequence has a link to the questions people come up with in mind when considering choice sequences:
– How might my choice affect me?
– If I say “No” – will I hurt someone, disappoint them, or get some negative outcome by default?
By posing the choice proposition sequence in the way I did, in fact, I have killed your choice before giving you a chance to have one. I have posed certain inhibitory questions in your mind – if not even possibly triggering inhibitory prejudices.. Therefore in effect I turned the sequence to that of choice only, not of Free-Choice. ie, I might benefit from any of your choice, and you might not – whether you “chose” a gadget or not..
Indeed, to have a free choice, like free expression, you ought to be able to exercise that act free of negative repercussions by powers-that-be to what-ever-it-is-you-choose. In fact, not just free of negative outcomes by the more powerful than you, by also free of having to fear such outcomes.
Can you choose parrhesia?
Foucault traces thoughts and perceptions regarding these questions in fearless speech.
Sure, perhaps I phrased it too strongly.. I mean, if choice and its freedom are processes in an ever negotiating sequence practice, then at least one can have is the ability to question the process? The ability to fearlessly take part in the practice?
Do you think this guy, or that one has that freedom?
Do we have the fearless freedom to not use one gadget or another..?