X-Message-Number: 16398
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:47:04 -0400
From: Jeffrey Soreff <>
Subject: Reply to CryoNet #16377 and #16390

Louis Epstein wrote:

>We are asking for barriers if we permit unneccessary
>diversity.The development of opposed consciousnesses
>has been a bane of human existence.Every war there
>ever was has been caused by division.The "I am a ---
>while you are a ____" mentality is bad for all.

and also wrote:

>Take careful note of Oregon.Another thing that has been
>discussed(but not enacted) there is government health care.
>This has been conceived of as establishing guaranteed levels
>of care for various ills,to be provided to all as a right,
>**and prohibiting people from seeking additional care**.
>Justifications of equal rights,fair allocation of resources,
>etc. would be used to limit people's right to stay alive.

The proposed Oregon law would have set both lower and
upper limits to the level of health care a person could
receive.  The proponents of the law had a notion of what
level of levels they considered reasonable, and effectively
treated levels outside those limits as unnecessary diversity.
It would have squeezed the distribution from both directions.

Sure, it would have made people more similar, less diverse.
It would have done it by removing freedom.  Mr. Epstein,
does this make it clearer to you why many people on this list
value freedom and its normal consequence, the diversity that
comes of individuals' unregimented choices?  Do you see why
_anyone's_ judgement that some choices are unnecessary, and
should be forbidden, feels like a threat?

                              Best wishes,

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16398