So it's a kind of society "selfish" thing to do. And it is fair don't you think? Society shouldn't have a way to get protected from individual stupidity? So laws offer that protection. Society has to win something too out of it. Seems logically fair to me at least. — dimosthenis9

Human beings have evolved to take care of the sick, lame, lazy, stupid, and merely unlucky (including those intelligent and wise who dare). It is our way. The idea that people should be left to fend for themselves is inhumane and, from an evolutionary standpoint, stupid. Neandertals took care of each other, as did Cro-Magnon and everyone else on two legs with a brain. But this is all really beside the point that nothing is free. If it's not costing one, it's costing another. That can be through payment or through cost-externalization, but it will be paid for.

But I didn't say not to take care of people. Even if that for me is a total selfish thing to do also. It comes from the love for your family. It's instinct and not something altruistic what Neandertals did for example. Simply your individual benefit its also the social benefit as to evolve. But that's not my point of course society should take care of everyone but that everyone should also contribute if he wants society to care for him. It's for his own individual benefit at the end(wear helmet, pay taxes for hospitals etc). The problem is that people can't understand it truly. That's a total different issue though nothing to do with freedom so I leave it there.

That's a total different issue though nothing to do with freedom so I leave it there. — dimosthenis9

Agreed. Besides, I don't understand the rest of what you said. I'd ask if English is your first language, but I guess I don't much care since none of any of what has been said addressed my OP about nothing is free.

If "inequality" by policy, then it must benefit the needy more than the greedy. (à la Rawls).

In other words ...

To be free of fear and/or the adverse consequences (i.e. historically accumulated legacies) of 

(1) economic exploitation,
(2) social discrimination, and
(3) political mass-violence in reaction to (1) & (2)

is freedom.

Liberty, it seems, consists in social arrangments, or institutions, which manifestly function to defend, sustain and extend the scope of freedom. No society, no liberty. No liberty, no freedom most of the time for most people. No freedom, no society.

We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive. — The Road to Wigan Pier (1937)

suppose you’re right. In many ways I think this is why the escapism of media and literature plays such a large part in our lives. Distraction from the disenfranchising aspects of every day social life and lack of true freedom. If anything the human mind and imagination is the most free thing we’ve got - there is little restriction in the non physical/ hypothetical. — Benj96

Your are right on target. There is this very extensive discourse aimed at convincing us that we are free. We are free, for example, to buy whatever we like and can pay for: See Amazon.con . We can freely move--pull up stakes in Maine and try Arizona. There are all sorts of things we can do without much restriction which creates the impression of great freedom, while at the same time foreclosing options that might yield greater long-run freedom.

While we are pretty much free to quit any job we dislike, we are definitely not free to organize our fellow workers for better working terms and a greater share of the profits they produce. The law is stacked against workers organizing, as is the combined weight of Capital. At various times, political deviance has been severely repressed. Even the expression of political deviance had been sanctioned at times. Deviant sexual behavior is much less policed now, but that is a recent development. Well, one can multiply the many examples of ways in which we are explicitly or implicitly not free.

Helping the implicit and explicit restrictions on freedom, there is the escapist literature you named, everything from Downton Abbey to The Simpsons--two of my favorites. One thinks of the Superman comics of one's youth -- a powerful person capable of slicing through all limitations. Some prefer Jane Austin; others prefer hard core porn, but we all want to escape.

It's a conundrum: being sort of free and sort of enslaved at the same time. I'm on the side of those who want to cut through the confusion to reveal what is arbitrary restriction of freedom (repression of workers' organizing, workers' exploitation) and what is natural restriction (individual limitations, social necessities like working to produce food, clothing, shelter, and escapist literature). I'm on the side of those who want to reduce arbitrary restrictions on freedom for workers who are 95%+ of the world's population.

↪god must be atheist Few things are so ignorant as thinking to know what another person needs. — Tzeentch

You are absolutely right, and I agree with you.

This is why I wrote, that perhaps you read,

You get paid for your work. You decide how and on what to spend the money earned. Nobody else has to look out for you and decide for you what your needs are... you decide yourself, and you use your money to buy those things and services that YOU decide YOU need. — god must be atheist

Money is exchangeable to that product that you need and YOU decide which product it is. Money itself is not needed; you can't use money for anything but to buy goods and services. Therefore they don't DECIDE for you what you do with your money when you get paid. You decide what to do with your money. I don't know if you understand this, and you wrote the quote above in agreement, or in disagreement. If you were a bit more explanatory and less quizzical, it would help me formulate the proper answer to you.

I am not blaming you or your style, I am not criticizing, I am just saying that for my comprehension, your response above is lacking in informative value.

↪god must be atheist in such a case how might we then help the poor to help themselves? — Benj96

In what case? Did I make a case? Again, you guys are thinking out quietly to yourselves what you are responding to, while not letting your conversation partner know what the dickens you are referring to.

Please use the quote function to direct attention to the points you refer to in someone else's posts.

Freedom requires Responsibility.

Many people want Freedom without the Responsibility it bring. They are immature/naive/inexperienced. Coming to terms with this is a vital step in developing as a human being.

YOU also are forced to pay taxes. This is used for many things that private people can't do: build roads, maintain a military, run government services like patent office and copyright protection, drug testing for approval for fitness, educating the populace for job readiness, and a million other useful services you can't do without, as well as foreign diplomacy administration and internal policing. — god must be atheist

Essentially a state will tell you what you need, and then claim it does a decent job at providing it. I consider it to be a bad judge at both. Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof.

the insurance companies absolutely hate paying for anything. So, we pass laws to keep the premiums down — James Riley

As if that kept the premiums down... insurance companies employ actuaries to calculate the risk on return, but basically they charge the maximum the market will bear. They are a business, not a benevolent society. They are not even in the business to run a fair lottery. They are in the business of making money.

YOU also are forced to pay taxes. This is used for many things that private people can't do: build roads, maintain a military, run government services like patent office and copyright protection, drug testing for approval for fitness, educating the populace for job readiness, and a million other useful services you can't do without, as well as foreign diplomacy administration and internal policing.
— god must be atheist

Essentially a state will tell you what you need, and then claim it does a decent job at providing it. I consider it to be a bad judge at both. Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof. — Tzeentch

So please tell me which of the following do you deem bad judgment by the government, and which you vehemently oppose your money spent on: building roads, bridges, hydroelectric dams, or maintaining a military, a law enforcement service, or jails or the legal system, making sure the professionals pass a bar of knowledge level, expertise and training, or that houses are built to standards that prevent accidents and deaths, etc.

Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof. — Tzeentch

If it were not for the government, then gangs of thugs would force you into much worse conditions, again through violence or threat thereof.

Aside from the preceding, and also related to the preceding:

You've heard all my arguments before and I have heard all your arguments before. Basically we think of each other as misguided idiots, who can't see beyond their noses, mutually and equally. If we carry this on, you will always say something and I will always say something to that. Do you want to continue with this? I don't, not particularly.

So please tell me which of the following do you deem bad judgment by the government, and which you vehemently oppose your money spent on — god must be atheist

Dropping bombs on civilians, for one.

If it were not for the government, then gangs of thugs would force you into much worse conditions, again through violence or threat thereof. — god must be atheist

What is worse, a large gang of thugs or a small gang of thugs?

Basically we think of each other as misguided idiots, who can't see beyond their noses, mutually and equally. — god must be atheist

Your words, not mine.

Do you want to continue with this? — god must be atheist

Or I wouldn't be here.

. You can be free anywhere ...

. Unless you're attached to anything ... your Life is a celebration ... you ... live in utter freedom ...

. You can be free in society ... Yes ... but ... you cannot identify yourself with any social bound or condition ... otherwise ... you would be stuck on the society shackles ... on the society traps ...

. In order to be a ... human being ... you shall be free ...

. Inevitably ... you'll be in society. It's impossible being out of society. Even if you go to the himalayas ... you'll carry out ... with you ... the social conditions in your mind ... as a subtle ... autohypnosis ... that society has been giving to you ... since your birth ...

. Out of intelligence ... freedom is possible ... even ... in a repressive mean ... even ... in a repressive environment ... Why is it so?

. Because ... freedom comes from within ... friend ...

. Nobody can take you out ... You ... as such ... are freedom ...

. It's your very birth right ...

. Once upon a time ... Buddha was recorded for saying - "Even in Hell ... I'll be well."

Dropping bombs on civilians, for one. — Tzeentch

Name the last time a bomb was dropped on your head by your government. Not figuratively, but with bomb in the unfigurative, literal meaning.

What is worse, a large gang of thugs or a small gang of thugs? — Tzeentch

A small gang of thugs are worse.

Your words, not mine. — Tzeentch

your statement does not state whether you disagree or agree.

Or I wouldn't be here. — Tzeentch

Groan...

Name the last time a bomb was dropped on your head by your government. Not figuratively, but with bomb in the unfigurative, literal meaning. — god must be atheist

You misunderstood. I'm talking about war, of course. A long-standing, bloody tradition that (certain) countries cannot seem to get enough of, and that every taxpayer is complicit in whether they like it or not.

A small gang of thugs are worse. — god must be atheist

Well, I would disagree.

your statement does not state whether you disagree or agree. — god must be atheist

I don't think you are a misguided idiot, even if I disagree with you.

"Society" is a euphemism for ruling class elite values.
A euphemism for the regulation of humans for the purpose of creating wealth for the elite.
A euphemism for subtle slavery of the majority to the tiny minority.
A billionaires manifesto!