Quote Originally Posted by wmrs2 View Post
What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.
Ok all I wanted to know was when you said los of reedom whether you mean freedom to chooice you doctor ect ect or lost of civil librities

your post to me was very ambiguous when toy said "Loss Of Freedoms," tha could mean any number of tyings from loosing you ability to choose your docotor, hosptial pharamacy and be at theirmercy or your cilvil libertires
ifi was in refernce to loss of choosing your own docotor, ect yes you would if was in reference to loosing your civil liberties, that would have nothngi to do with it the as i ssaid the term used "LOss of Freedo as posted was a very geberal term