Said who? This is an argument from invented opposition. I’m not sure anyone actually defines freedom as "a huge array of choices". The author seems to invent a mainstream narrative just to dismantle it(arguing against a straw man)
Abundance of choice and freedom are orthogonal. Having the right choice and being free are not.
It's the inversion of something which is correct.
If you don't have any choice or are limited to a small number of bad options, that's not freedom. Freedom requires choice.
But choice is necessary, not sufficient. Having a thousand frivolous choices that are all bad and still not the ones you ought to have is not it either.
Evidence of a fact is different from the fact.
> Said who? This is an argument from invented opposition. I’m not sure anyone actually defines freedom as "a huge array of choices".
This is an argument about who "defined freedom as ..." and I pointed out who did.
I guess you have in mind something like: all the pointless churn of making the latest video doorbells and smart watches could instead be dedicated to giving me and you some time off work. So, UBI? Maybe. But this is obstructed by voters, or by practicalities.
And an evergreen one is the single differentiating feature. Like color. How many kitchenaid appliances have been sold in a faddish color only to be replaced by white or black or red a handful of years later? Those things were tanks. Still are to an extent.
I want one but not for that much.
Also being poor is expensive.