3 ms·
You're equating money with freedom where the question is philosophical: can you be 'free' in any meaningful way if your life is burdened by a lack of education
by omginternets 10y ago
You're equating money with freedom where the question is philosophical: can you be 'free' in any meaningful way if your life is burdened by a lack of education, the financial ruin of having been seriously ill, or the handicap of having been poorly treated for a disease?
So yes, that's precisely the trade-off. We accept to lose a little bit of money in exchange for the ability to flourish.
- witty_username 10y agoBut you can buy health insurance instead of public healthcare. But you lose the freedom to decide.
- omginternets 10y ago>So yes, that's precisely the trade-off. We accept to lose a little bit of s/money/freedom-of-decision in exchange for the ability to flourish.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- zo1 10y agoThis is a fundamental difference in view point on the concept of "Freedom". That's also why it's important to call taxation for what it truly is. Until people can be born free without automatic obligation to the state to provide for "your freedom", then they're not really free. That is the only freedom that matters and is definable outside of feel-good politics. So lets be honest: I'm losing the "Freedom" to spend all my money how I choose, so you can be free of the worry that certain "bad" things may happen to you.