You follow their rules for funding, not because you require an authority to govern your life. Presumably you would follow the rules according to any source of funding, not just state funding? — NOS4A2
If one thinks through an issue it should be apparent that despite the restrictions imposed by the state we enjoy many benefits that most would not be willing to give up. — Fooloso4
I’m only convinced the state should not operate like a criminal organization. — NOS4A2
Your position reminds me of the happy slave myth. — NOS4A2
I was speaking of funding, not practices. I assume that had you worked in one of those places you wouldn’t require a public authority to govern your day-to-day. — NOS4A2
You didn’t develop any ideas, principles, and corresponding behaviors as you grew up? How do you survive? — NOS4A2
So is that that you are not opposed to statism but rather to particular practices of the state?
I have not stated a position. I recognize that we enjoy certain benefits being citizens of a state, but do not accept your view that citizens are slaves.
I did, but did so within a state that promoted equality and the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is evident that not everyone in this state abides by these principles, at least when it comes to how they treat others.
American healthcare, as we know it today, wouldn't be possible without Medicare funding.
You want to go back to 1960s funding, but keep the same level of care? I don't think that's going to work.
Are we to conclude from this that whatever your hope for the future may be, you recognize the need for the state today? — Fooloso4
I didn’t say I want to go back to any sort of funding, only pointing out government funding isn’t required for healthcare. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.