Standard economic theory implies that we maximize our happiness if we have more choices. Yet we limit our choices — impose self-control mechanisms — voluntarily in order to improve our well-being. For example, I just signed a book contract with a small advance payment.
I don’t need the extra money right now, but having taken the advance payment I know I’ll feel guilty if I don’t finish writing the manuscript by the contract deadline. So while the contract limits my freedom, I’ve chosen to limit my freedom of choice.
For another example: my daughter-in-law asked us to contribute to a fund-raising project. She’s trying to get several families involved
to raise enough money to obtain matching funds. My wife and I would be happy to contribute 2/3 of the total needed; but I’m mentally limiting our contribution to below 1/2, since we shouldn’t be the “majority stockholder” — I want to encourage other members to contribute.
I’m being manipulative, but I’m also manipulating myself and limiting my own choices. This kind of apparently restrictive behavior is everywhere — it’s the way we control urges that we know we shouldn’t indulge.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
These are kind of extreme, but I canceled my Internet service and unplugged the cable from the back of my TV because I was wasting too much time with them. Now I spend more time reading, practicing piano, and thinking. I’m far happier.
Actually, limiting choices is highly rational. There are sometimes huge search costs involved if there are tons of choices that are not easily compared. Imagine having to drive to five stores to compare prices and kinds of HDTVs, versus deciding on one store and picking the best deal there. While you may pay a small premium for not price-comparing, you save a tremendous amount of time, effort, and probably gas by limiting your choices. Maximizing utility must take these transaction costs into account: at some point, an additional choice is unlikely to be the best choice, but the cost of checking it out is high. More choices, after a certain amount, are simply not worth it even to the very rational agent.
I nominate PDB for ironic comment of the year award.
Agreed, SW!!!
I second that nomination!!!
it was Kant who said to be free is to be a slave to reason
I think you donated less than half instead of 2/3 because you don’t want to spend all that money on that donation. The same I think is true for the advance payment you accepted for your next book. You wanted that money. Also accepting money and entering a contract you now have to complete the book according to the time limit specified in the contract. To get the remaining cash you’ll probably right the book even earlier.
The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz is a great book about the same principle. It makes some pretty good arguments about why more freedom is not necessarily better.