The discussion of "free" that was raging in all of the Economics Honors classes has got me thinking.
Is there really, positively, no-doubt-about-it, a cross-my-fingers-hope-to-die-stick-a-needle-in-my-eye promise that nothing in this vast, grand world of ours has the absolutely, definitely imponderable value of being FREE?
Free, in my opinion, is the virtue of having no cost: monetary or opportunity. Essentially, there was nothing spent for a "free" thing to exist and continue existing. Of course, everyone quickly figured out that anything tangible cannot possibly be free since theoretically, it took TIME to make everything (grass, books, babies, air, etc.). Therefore, as the class swiftly shifted to intangible things (such as gravity), the line separating free and not free was blurred.
Is time free?
Is space free?
Can anyone think of something that is legitimately free?
As a side note, I would like to reiterate what Mr. Silton said in my class period about the cost of love (a popular answer to the popular question: Is there anything really free out there?). Love is perhaps one of the most costly things I've ever known. Love eats away time like nothing I've ever witnessed before in my life (though time well spent). Even parental love isn't free since parents feel obligated to do things (and thus spend time) for the children that they love. But, I like it that way. If love didn't cost anything, it wouldn't be as precious or as special when someone has it.
11 comments:
In an economic sense, no. Nothing is free because "There is no such thing as a free lunch," right? There are always people who have to put in time, effort, and resources in order to provide what others receive as "free."
Time is not free because you cannot escape it and you are always doing something during that "free time."
Love is not free because like Eric said, it involves endless amounts of time. It also requires many sacrifices and compromise, which do not come easily.
It's not possible. Nothing is free....but is that really a bad thing? Friendship isn't free because you need to be emotionally invested with your friends. you help them through their highs and lows and in turn you talk to them when something is bothering you. I think that's a pretty fair trade off.
What would you do if you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom? What would you do if asked to make the ultimate sacrifice? Would you think about all them people who gave up everything they had? Would you think about all them War Vets, and would you start to feel bad? Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me, and if we don't all chip in we'll never pay that bill. Freedom isn't free, now there's a have to hook'in fee. And if you don't throw in your buck'o five who will?
I think we might be taking what is supposed to be a simple economic concept a bit too far, applying it too broadly. After all, it is just an economic concept (a fact?), dealing with economic choices - and gravity is not really an economic choice.
Asking if love is free is kind of like asking if it has a coefficient of friction (it would have a very high one); it verges on practical meaninglessness.
All economic choices have alternatives, therefore they have an associated opportunity cost and are not free. I think that's really the take-home idea.
I definitely agree with Anthony. Although "There is no such thing as a free lunch" is a good rule of thumb for economics, I don't know if we can properly apply that principle to every element of life.
The value of love is not even remotely quantifiable, and as such, the use of such an example is troublesome for me.
But as far as a counterargument to the "free lunch" principle is concerned, isn't the air we breathe free?
Amrit: According to Silton, air is not free because we pay taxes to regulate air pollution to keep the air we breathe clean.
Can anyone refute that happiness is free? I feel that happiness is free because it does not cost anybody anything, it takes really no time, and it can come from random, even unintentional things. Happiness doesn't have to come from watching a comedian at work, but from something as simple as a flower or an absentminded smile that seems to be directed your way.
Nichole: if the thing that gives you happiness comes from an outside source like someone else then....it really isn't free. also, if happiness is something like leading a healthy life or having the things you want then happiness is definitely not free. But I do think there are somethings that you can't put a price on, happiness being one of them
I do agree with the comments about going too far in applying the economic concept and I don't think it is suppose to be applied to this extent.
@Nichole: I know that I shouldn't shoot the messenger, but there are more than enough societies that have no such thing as air pollution taxes. Isn't breathing free for those societies? Wasn't breathing free in America in the pre-Clean Air Act era?
hahaha, amrit, it's ok for shooting the messenger- i don't really believe that nothing is free because i think my personal definition is different from silton's. Still, silton would say that air isn't free because it has a cost for somebody else.
Post a Comment