Aah, Churchill's old insult: "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" "Umm, well, I suppose so." "Her's a tenner, lift your skirt." "What do yo

Aah, Churchill's old insult: "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" "Umm, well, I suppose so." "Her's a tenner, lift your skirt." "What do you take me for?" "We have already settled the question of what you are, now we are haggling over the price." Makes for a humorous story, but it's a terrible reduction ad absurdum argument. The fact that I am prepared to give up x percent of my income in exchange for a given set of benefits that have value to me says nothing about how I would feel giving up 2x or 3x percent of my income for some possibly different set of benefits. Speaking as an Ontarian, I'd be horrified if a political offered to cut my taxes in half and give me the "freedom" to choose my own health care in the "free market." That doesn't make me a slave, it makes me someone who pools certain funds in a coöperative manner. If you want the same argument back at you, try dismantling your army and giving every citizen the right to defend themselves from foreign aggression, buying their weaponry and training on the free market. Choosing to voluntarily pool some portion of your income with other citizens to fund a common defense is not slavery either. It's another kind of freedom.