Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fresc who wrote (423)	2/1/2005 8:49:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Lack of freedom: when members of a society are not guarding everyone's rights equally, when some prosecute their own rights to the detriment of another person's rights rather than in balance. No that isn't the definition of "lack of freedom". In fact its not very coherent, at very least very vague. To the extent that it does make sense what you are describing could be considered a bad thing. Lack of freedom is also a bad thing, but they are different bad things. The amount of poverty and people with out health care in America Neither is the same as a lack of freedom. Also the poverty in the US is only relative poverty. A lot of people in the US are poorer then a lot of other people, but over most of the world, currently or historically, the standard of living that they have would not be considered poor. Such relative poverty also exists in Canada. Its possible that a smaller percentage of such Canadians fall in to such a relatively poor state but that is another topic for discussion, it isn't about freedom at all. The number of people without any level of health care in the US is essentially zero. I believe you mean the number of people without health insurance. The two things are not the same, and once again neither of them is relevant to the issue of freedom. Being free isn't the only possible good thing, being un-free (or just slightly less free then you could be) is far from the only possible bad thing. So its quite possible for other considerations to be more important. If hypothetically we agreed (note: in reality we don't agree on this) that in areas other then freedom Canada was much better off then the US; that would not mean that Canada was more free then the US. If life in Canada is/was more secure, more stable, more fun, happier, whatever, then life in the US, those "facts" wouldn't say anything about the relative level of freedom in the US and Canada. Your preferred form of argument seems to have shifted from ad hominem to irrelevant conclusion. intrepidsoftware.com philosophypages.com Tim