I think I will just go ahead and not read that.Jesus Christ, stop beating your chest and waving your dick around and just answer the question(s) posed to you.
EVERYONE'S a bad-ass on the internet, and BTW pretty much everyone is ENTHUSIED about the idea of staying alive.
Dosen't mean they have the skilss to do so in a given set of circumstances.
Are you still free if you have less means? Yeah, you are. Freedom is only synonymous with ability in strictly existential terms, not socio-political terms. For example, you don’t have the ability to fly, so you are not free to fly. That’s an existential condition, much like anything else you are unable to do. The socio-political sense of the term “freedom” or “Liberty” is an absence of interference, coercion, or oppression by other people. In this sense, a person with more means (the rich guy) is not more free than a person with less means (the poor guy).What is freedom?
If you're free to do whatever you want (without hurting someone) but you don't have any money after you pay your rent, buy food, pay your health care, etc. Are you free?
Wouldn't the best measure of freedom be your income after taxes and basic necessities are paid for?
If you have a hundred a week, after you covered your nut, you're free to have a modest evening out once a week.
If you have more than that, aren't you free to do more?
What if you were in a situation where everything got deducted, your rent, your food, your medical, and what you got in your pay check was yours to spend on whatever you felt like spending it on, wouldn't it be true that the more there was in that check, the more freedom you would experience?
What happens if we apply the theory of marginal utility to those "free bucks", there's an argument for steeply graduated taxes.
Leaving more to the people where those bucks make the biggest difference.
Think about it...