Child mortality rates under Bush versus Castro

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter flotsam
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
36 replies · 6K views
Smurf said:
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free. I think it's you who has the burden of proof to show that they're different or opposed to each other.

Smurf you TOTALLY ignored my post! I gave you a situation where your theory is totally bollocks..

Anttech said:
eh? So if everyone is free, then everyone will be equal?
This is in contridiction with Evolution.. The strongest, fittest and most well adapted survive..

So in a nongovermental raw animal situation like for example in the perhistoric man situation would you say everyone was equal although they were totally free from any outside influences that we today have? I would say nope

Freedom and equality are not the same thing, thus, there two totally different meanings in the English lang. One doesn't equate the other

Lets say I am 6"4 and you are 4"9 (being a smurf) and we are both free to fight each other. I am also a martial arts expert. We have a fight, I win you lose. This is because I am bigger than you, we are not equal in stature.

Even if you did define the premises for your statement, I doubt you would be able to make it any more true.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ancient populations were not free from natural forces but they were completely free from man-made institutions such as capitalism and the state.
 
X-43D said:
Ancient populations were not free from natural forces but they were completely free from man-made institutions such as capitalism and the state.

Well they were tribal from the git-go, so they had a form of state, not completely disentangled from religion. Saying these things are "man-made" begs the question of their non-evolutionary origin.
 
Besides, it's hard to see what's "unnatural" about man-made institutions. Is man not a part of nature? It's also a little difficult to think of capitalism as a man-made institution. All it is is the lack of state regulation of commercial transactions, leaving all details to the privately negotiated contracts between buyer and seller. It's the items exchanged that are man-made.
 
Anttech said:
Smurf you TOTALLY ignored my post! I gave you a situation where your theory is totally bollocks..



Freedom and equality are not the same thing, thus, there two totally different meanings in the English lang. One doesn't equate the other

Lets say I am 6"4 and you are 4"9 (being a smurf) and we are both free to fight each other. I am also a martial arts expert. We have a fight, I win you lose. This is because I am bigger than you, we are not equal in stature.

Even if you did define the premises for your statement, I doubt you would be able to make it any more true.
I didn't address your post, and I'm not going to now, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
selfAdjoint said:
Well they were tribal from the git-go, so they had a form of state, not completely disentangled from religion. Saying these things are "man-made" begs the question of their non-evolutionary origin.

They were tribal or clanish but there were no laws which protected money ownership. There was no market system.
 
Smurf said:
I didn't address your post, and I'm not going to now, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Fair enough... I suppose it was extemly complex :-p