[cspackler]

Wow, talk about Socialist claptrap! Don't worry, you're all to stupid so we'll just decide what's best for you...

[XHogPilot]

In cases like these, increased choice often enables people to improve their lives ... But it also makes people feel worse.

Hard to believe this made it into print, even in the NY fishwrap. Ask the people of the (former) Soviet Republics if they appreciated the lack of choices in their lives. One political party, one name on the ballot, one choice of apartment, one type of bread.

[newgeezer]

"Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account," the president said.

Yeah, keep right on screwing us older guys. Everyone knows we're too naive to do the right thing with our retirement funds.

Tell you what, Dubya. You let me invest "my half" of the FICA taxes. You can keep the rest.

[browardchad]

Carl Schneider, a law professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in medical ethics, has reported that patient satisfaction goes down when the choice of pharmaceutical and medical treatment goes up.

How was this measured, I wonder? Did the same people who couldn't choose among the varieties of jam in the supermarket also walk out of the doctor's office in indignation at the variety of treatment choices? Did they sue for mental anguish because their doctors gave them options?

This is funny stuff on one level, but it's also a revealing look at how the liberal elite view the unwashed masses.

[Reactionary]

Let me guess: The anxiety that's produced by choice only extends to those things that liberals dislike. The "party of choice" would never extend this logic to, say, abortion or to sexual "lifestyles."

Typical liberal idiocy.

[jimbokun]

Does this remind anyone of the old Wendy's commercial about a Soviet Union fashion show?

A large woman walks down the runway waring a featureless gray sheath of cloth, as the emcee drones "day-wear".

The same woman, wearing the same garment re-emerges and the voice says "evening-wear".

A third time, same woman, same garment. "Swim-wear".

This is what the NYTimes says is best for us. No more choices to stress us out.

BTW, the NYTimes writers must despise New York City, with the endless choices for food, entertainment, people to meet, places to work, etc. etc.

[sdk7x7]

We read and debated this article in my AP Government class today... what a pile of crap. As I told the class, history has shown that dictatorships under which there are no choices fall a lot faster than democracies where there are. And what's this about "government" making choices instead of individuals? I thought the gov't was by and for the people. In fact, the government is just a group of people! Why should they make choices for ME?!

[The KG9 Kid]

The author is precisely the type of man the Framers of the US Constitution had in mind when they noted the Right to Keep and Bear Arms the second specifically enumerated human right on the list, just behind the right where we give fellows like this ample warning to stay out of our business.

[Billthedrill]

While a life without any freedom of choice would not be worth living, it appears not to be true that more choice inevitably leads to more freedom and greater happiness. Indeed, there may be a point when choice tyrannizes people more than it liberates them. The implication of this news, both for individuals and for government officials, is that sound social policy simply cannot consist of throwing an ever-greater menu of options at the American people.

Indeed, faced with an infinite number of choices the result is paralysis. But this does not imply that we have that number of choices. Nor is it true that Bush's proposal consists of "throwing an ever-greater menu of options at the American people."

In fact, this research may be perfectly sound as a psychology study, but as practical political guidance it is entirely a straw man. For it to be applicable to the present situation the researcher would have to demonstrate that the number of extra choices given to an individual by the new policy crosses the threshold from gratitude to discomfort. And recall, an individual is not obligated to make any of these choices under this policy - if he or she prefers to avoid the risk he or she can opt for a plan that is entirely government-directed. One would think a psychologist who really understood the implications of this research would identify that as a safety valve. Comforting, but recall Peart's lyric here - "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."