4 ms·

And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's i

And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's in the country's and the world's best interest to have all capable young people able to be entrepreneurs. Second, of course I'm comfortable subsidizing women, young people, poor people, and other groups, because I view the world in a Rawlsian fashion. That is, it is just chance that I am a healthy, young, and relatively wealthy young man. But if I were a woman, or an immigrant, or subject to any other set of circumstances, then I would want the same opportunities as anyone else. As for the specific case of whether or not the healthcare laws should provide a way for all women to safely and affordably make babies - then I would say a hearty yes to this too. And as far as I can tell, this law benefits men and women equally. Unless there is a test tube involved, all babies need a man and a woman, so I really can't see how healthcare coverage for pregnancies has a sexist bias. I hope you enjoy your youth and health, but when you get sick or old, I think you'll change your tune.

uuilly 16y ago
I don't think founders should concern themselves with fixing the inequities of the world. And I think it's in society's interest to place as little burden as possible on people who make goods or provide services that improve productivity. I also don't think that you should presume to know anything about what my future tune may be.
warrenwilkinson 16y ago
'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing. Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody. OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.

uuilly 16y ago

I don't think founders should concern themselves with fixing the inequities of the world. And I think it's in society's interest to place as little burden as possible on people who make goods or provide services that improve productivity. I also don't think that you should presume to know anything about what my future tune may be.

warrenwilkinson 16y ago

'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing. Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody. OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.