PS - I forgot to mention - increased choice also leads to inordinate levels of waste (as we turn into throwaway, fickle cultures). Our blind, addictive behaviours will create untold problems for future generations.

One day, everyone will realise: constant change, more choice, increasing competition, in the end, make poor provision for a 'generally' happy, sustainable species.

I have no problem with consumer choice. It is, though, a pretty minor aspect of life. Whether I can choose four different kinds or five different kinds of yoghurt is hardly the basis for a life philosophy.

So why does it appear important to some political writers? I think the answer is as follows.

All liberals, whether left or right wing, begin with a concept of an atomised, pre-social individual pursuing his or her own will. This means that all liberals have to answer a basic question: how do you regulate a society made up of millions of such competing wills.

Left-liberals generally believe that the state can harmonise competing wills. Right-liberals, though, believe that millions of individuals can compete for their own profit through the free market and still benefit society overall.

I don't agree with either view - I think the entire starting point of liberalism is wrong.

However, what's relevant here is that the right-liberal, free-market solution leads to an emphasis on "Economic Man", since it is through our economic activities in a free market that society is seen to be effectively regulated.

If the free market is the essential way of harmonising competing wills, then we will choose to view individuals in their economic aspect, as consumers, or employers, or members of a labour force.

Hence the concern to either undermine (from the left) or defend (from the right) individuals as choice wielding consumers within a free market.

It's an ideological thing. We should let the left and right fight it out, and stay focused on more important things (family, nation, individual character, love, art, nature, beauty etc).

I lived for a while in the USA. The supermarkets were awesome, aisles and aisles of seemingly endless choice. But were they?

Most of the choice were simply variations on a theme, for example, laundry detergent, which can basically be divided into powder or liquid form, then down into sub categories of whitening agents each then into different fragrances, lavendar, lemon and so on. These weren't choices at all the product was essentially the same.

This is true of most western consumer goods. We are bombarded and blinded by superficial variation. It is all designed to part us of from our hard earned dollars.

Similar to our communication plans offered by Telstra, Optus etc - taking the time to sit and work out what is really being offered one soon discovers there is little to distinguish them.

The endless choice we are offered is a chimera. An advertising campaign. It isn’t real. But it is often bewildering.

Any who criticise this pseudo choice is referred to as an anti-choicer by the author. This is a simplistic view of a complex problem.

I would like to choose consumer goods that actually lasted; computers or other electrical goods that could be upgraded, without a built in use-by date and become toxic land fill in a few short years - this is short sighted and not choice at all.

Real choice is about choosing how we live our lives. Whether to marry, stay married, have children, excell in a professional career or live simply off the land. I would like to choose sustainable energy systems for my home - on my income I have no hope of achieving that. Affordable? Not. Another non-choice.

Similar are the communication plans offered by Telstra, Optus etc - taking the time to sit and work out what is really being offered one soon discovers there is little to distinguish them. Much like our political partys.... our current Prime Minister is really the default PM - there is no other choice on offer.

The author has confused capitalism with freedom of choice.

Many seem to take opportunity to criticise “choice”.

I find it hard to.

Why – because when choice is removed – what is left ?

The uncompetitive offerings of a bloated and protected producer (eg Australian Telecomm, as was) or worse, nothing at all (as was the case for those to the east of the east/west divide).

When someone wants to limit choice I suggest you ask yourself – why?

What is in it for them to restrict and reduce the range of options which present themselves to us as individuals?

Certainly “choice” is partially a matter of competition and competing vendors of goods and services of every nature from baked beans to hospitals, schools and religion.

Less choice = more likelihood of monopolies, higher prices, greater central control and less regard for the user / consumer / taxpayer who funds the choices and generates the results which providers seek.

Greater choice determines better value for money and better results through free competitive participation. When the range of choices exceed the number the market can support, marginal vendors will fall out of the supply side of the equation, simple.

The last thing we need is some plutocrat telling us how many choices we are allowed to have because that same plutocrat will determine that “no choice” is the most efficient “production model” and when Stalin is the Plutocrat, then we all suffer.

Oh, regardless of how appeasing and sensible they start off sounding, like those of a “verdant hue”, they all end up as Stalin, once in power.

Oh Scout – freedom of choice and capitalism – an easy error, since the opposite is the bedrock of the socialist, where we are all forced to settle for zero-choice mediocrity.

The sort of choice that Julie Novak writes about is really rather superficial. It doesn’t add a lot to our quality of life because it doesn’t add quality to the products or services, just more of similar quality. The quality was generally high to start with in most cases, so increased variety couldn’t significantly improve them. Besides, it is marketing and price that sells a product, not so much quality.

Choice in ways that really matter is not increasing, but is declining as more and more restrictions are implemented - basically because of stressed resources such as water supplies, stressed infrastructure, higher crime rates, more rip-off merchants and con artists, less respect for the law in conjunction with poorer law-enforcement, etc, etc.

And then of course, those at the lowest socio-economic level, not least most people living indigenous communities, are stifled by an extraordinary lack of meaningful choice.

>>The author has confused capitalism with freedom of choice.<<

There is no confusion, choice is a significant aspect of free market capitalism. And the best manifestation of the benefits of choice is exactly where Scout sees the opposite - in the aisles of a supermarket.

Consider for a moment how the "aisles and aisles of seemingly endless choice" actually got there. The marketing departments of hundreds of suppliers constantly analyse what you and I are asking for, and are perpetually in a race to bring it to us.

Orange toothpate to go alongside the acres of minty stuff? Certainly sir. "Eco-friendly" detergent for those concerned about the fate of their dirty suds? Certainly madam (ooops, sexist) er, people.

And guess what? If it doesn't sell - i.e. if they had failed to understand us properly - it disappears.

Like New Coke. Or Betamax. Or Webvan. Or eight track cassettes...

The beauty of this system is that if we want it enough, it will appear.

Of course, where it falls down - and where some folk decry the goodness of choice because of this failure - is where the choice is artificial, or where it doesn't actually exist at all.

Col loves hearing about my white-haired octogenarian mother, a lady whom choice fails, because she often has none in places where she needs it. If she had a choice of modes of transport to the local town, for example, she would be utterly delighted, but unfortunately she doesn't.

However, she would not trade this inconvenience for its opposite - where she could get into town as often as she liked, but there would be nothing to see when she got there except acres and acres of the same stuff. Heck, even at that age you need something to live for.

Choice in the market will decrease when we decide that it will, and for our own reasons.