Quote:
Originally Posted by Muthsera
Freedom is more than just rights and liberties
|
I realize that's your contention. And that's one way to define freedom. But, IIRC, you were responding to a reference to "free country", which specifically means a country that guarantees political freedoms. Trying to question one version of "free", with another, largely unrelated definition, strikes me as subterfuge rather than discourse.
Quote:
|
If your having to maintain 3 jobs to get ends to meet. Then are you really free?
|
It depends on which version of the word you're using. That was my point. The phrase "free country" is referring to liberty, so the need for three jobs to get by, while it would suck, isn't related to whether you're living in a "free country" or not.
Quote:
|
No, I would argue that your not. You actually have to have some degree of free time as well to even contemplate or benefit your freedoms. Do you understand what I'm getting at?
|
I do. And it's a worthwhile point to make. I just bristle at word games. I'm not saying it was your personal intent to mislead - equivocation is commonly used in political campaigns. But I find it leads to less understanding, not more.
Quote:
|
Nanny state often just involves greater tax pressure. So is not paying higher taxes a right? What about progressive tax? And why does that constitute less freedom? Which btw, was what smurf where arguing.
|
Taxes, by their very nature, are coerced payments. Taxes take away your freedom to decide whether or not you want to pay for the service they are funding. Higher taxes, take away more freedom. That's not always a bad thing - trading freedom for security is the nature of government. but it isn't something we should resort to just because the taxation is "for a good cause". We should use taxation, and thus government solutions, only when necessary. There are all kinds of ways to make good things happen in society that don't require taxation or the force of law.