Its origins (as near as I can reckon) is amongst the British elite, the sort who nosh on strawberries and cream on the lawn at Wimbleton, or at the races.

The anecdote teller is relating what we would now call an urban legend- a friend of a a friend was attending one of those Bolshi rallies (for laughs of course), where the featured speaker regaled the crowd visions of life (strawberries and cream) after the revolution. One of the great unwashed retorts that he don’t want none- a clear sign of unworthiness (probably doesn’t even know what a strawberry is… All the toffs snicker at that…)

The ‘urban legend’ is meant to suggest that the workers being recruited to overthrow the elites are unworthy to seize power- and would not know what to do with it once seized.

Its origins (as near as I can reckon) is amongst the British elite, the sort who nosh on strawberries and cream on the lawn at Wimbleton, or at the races.

The anecdote teller is relating what we would now call an urban legend- a friend of a a friend was attending one of those Bolshi rallies (for laughs of course), where the featured speaker regaled the crowd visions of life (strawberries and cream) after the revolution. One of the great unwashed retorts that he don’t want none- a clear sign of unworthiness (probably doesn’t even know what a strawberry is… All the toffs snicker at that…)

The ‘urban legend’ is meant to suggest that the workers being recruited to overthrow the elites are unworthy to seize power- and would not know what to do with it once seized.

Choosing freedom under poverty may be hedonically superior to riches under dictatorship, but most agree that it is not more “intrinsically” valuable. But you really need to define intrinsic for the statement to be intellectually satisfying. So how ’bout this: Think of choosing hedonically inferior states as a form of saving. Sure, sacrificing your freedom for increased pleasure may result in higher levels of utility now, but as a general rule, dictatorships aren’t as likely to produce environments conducive to hedonistic pleasure over the long-run. So we should, even if we are still maximizing pleasure, sometimes choose lower levels of utility now in order to produce greater levels of utility in the future. So 1) can be always true over the long-run, but sometimes false in the short-run.

But wouldn’t this approach violate what seems to amount to The Prime Directive for so many people (frequently the ones who post the greatest quantities): Anyone who disagrees with me in maters of fact is, ipso facto, stupid; Anyone who disagrees in matters of taste is either evil or sick.

I suspect they will write something like “Can anyone be truly autonomous? No.” and then either dismiss you as an anarchist, a fool or both.

I believe that this is the Utilitarian version of the strawberry anectode:

A) “After the revolution, you will be completly free.”
B) “But I’m not sure I’m ready to be completely free.”
A) “Ah hah! Then you don’t want complete freedom. By extrapolation, I can throw a lot more regulations and controls on you, help myself to an even bigger chunk of your earnings so I can have a big pay raise at my cushy job at a State-funded school, and you can’t complain about it – Yay me!”

I suspect they will write something like “Can anyone be truly autonomous? No.” and then either dismiss you as an anarchist, a fool or both.

I believe that this is the Utilitarian version of the strawberry anectode:

A) “After the revolution, you will be completly free.”
B) “But I’m not sure I’m ready to be completely free.”
A) “Ah hah! Then you don’t want complete freedom. By extrapolation, I can throw a lot more regulations and controls on you, help myself to an even bigger chunk of your earnings so I can have a big pay raise at my cushy job at a State-funded school, and you can’t complain about it – Yay me!”

But wouldn’t this approach violate what seems to amount to The Prime Directive for so many people (frequently the ones who post the greatest quantities): Anyone who disagrees with me in maters of fact is, ipso facto, stupid; Anyone who disagrees in matters of taste is either evil or sick.

Choosing freedom under poverty may be hedonically superior to riches under dictatorship, but most agree that it is not more “intrinsically” valuable. But you really need to define intrinsic for the statement to be intellectually satisfying. So how ’bout this: Think of choosing hedonically inferior states as a form of saving. Sure, sacrificing your freedom for increased pleasure may result in higher levels of utility now, but as a general rule, dictatorships aren’t as likely to produce environments conducive to hedonistic pleasure over the long-run. So we should, even if we are still maximizing pleasure, sometimes choose lower levels of utility now in order to produce greater levels of utility in the future. So 1) can be always true over the long-run, but sometimes false in the short-run.