3 ms·
It's not that people are ambivalent to death. It's that a certain amount of death is going to happen. You can't legislate it away. Some of us think we've rea
by mattpallissard 3y ago
It's not that people are ambivalent to death. It's that a certain amount of death is going to happen. You can't legislate it away. Some of us think we've reached the point of diminishing returns on many topics and don't think giving up liberties will do much good.
No I don't want cameras. No I don't want backdoor encryption. No I don't want gun registries. No I don't want the Fed's to have more money or power.
They are not looking out for our best interests most of the time.
- mikeyouse 3y agoHackernews never fails to deliver. The comments here are perfectly indicative. Pretending that implementing a sane healthcare system like Germany or Switzerland is "giving up liberty" relies on the assumption that the tens of millions of Americans without healthcare somehow have more "freedom" than they otherwise would if they could get regular checkups or receive health care that doesn't bankrupt them. Or that there's somehow "freedom" in being tied to a job you don't like solely because of the health insurance coverage. We already more pay per capita for government-run healthcare than e.g. Canada does, except it only covers our poorest and oldest citizens. Just a silly selfish view of 'freedom'.
- PlunderBunny 3y agoAgree - someone that's dead has no freedom at all.
- dontknowwhyihn 3y agoAnd someone who is free can choose to be as cautious as they please. They just can’t force their choices on everyone else.
- PlunderBunny 3y agoI’m not sure I understand - are you arguing that universal healthcare is having a choice forced on you?
- mattpallissard 3y agoNowhere in my comment did I say anything about healthcare systems. I specifically discussed being surveilled or otherwise controlled.