[Ham] Arlo chimed in wanting to parse the data. Apparently it's the number of individuals affected rather than the principle (value?) of freedom that's important to him.
[Arlo] Arlo chimed in to point out the manipulative rhetoric of your question. How you define "not free" is significant. Do you mean, a society where every one is imprisoned but fed three meals a day? Who on earth would choose this? And if you are talking taxation, then would you choose a society where no one pays taxes and hundreds of thousands are hungry, or one where everyone pays a dollar and everyone is fed? Is that "not free"? To have to pay one dollar in taxes to ensure no one is hungry? Or would one dollar be okay, but 80% of our income make us "not free"? So you see, when you are asking this question, you really need to define upfront the parameters. Otherwise you are just pulling people into ridiculously inane strawmen arguments. Also, this built-in notion that "collectivization" makes people "not free" is ridiculous. Am I "not free" because we have public libraries? Am I "not free" because we have public state and federal parks and lands? Am I "not free" because we have public roadways and waterways? All of these are "collectivist", and yet I wonder how many people would say they are enslaved or "not free" because of them? What about the collectivist police and military programs? Are we "not free" because of these? Should we privatize our police and military so we can "be free"? In other words, Ham, leave this kind of bunk for the morons of talk radio. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
