>>>>Okay, let me restate what I answered to Marcia. The example I chose may be far-fetched, but the point I tried to make is that 'freedom' is essential in some cases and less essential or even impossible in other cases. It is also often the case that one group's freedom has a negative, not wanted, impact on another group. And how about the group's freedom to decide that it is okay to mandate all members of the group to participate in a public service?
>>>>
>>>>Why this/your focus on freedom of the individual?
>>>
>>>Individual liberty, above all, is at the heart of a free and civil society.
>>
>>Agree. But must it be fundamental liberty in each and every case?
>
>I do not understand the question.

How about anarchy then?

>>>>Aren't justice and equality (to name two) worth as much or even more?
>>>
>>>Without liberty, tyranny makes the rules, a few become more equal than the others and they decide what is just.
>>
>>Is one limitation to liberty (e.g. a duty to participate in a health insurance system) enough to claim there is tyranny?
>
>Yes. Furthermore, imposition of a duty is more tyrannical than a restriction of liberty.

Tyranny has to do with suppression of fundamental needs.You are exaggerating here, esp. because an insurance system is beneficial for several fundamental needs.

>>>>So far what I already wrote therie. Let me add: 'Free market capitalism' is not the same as 'freedom for the individual'. I thought you were talking about the freedom of an individual to not buy any (medical) insurance product. So, what is it you want to talk about?
>>>
>>>You started by asking "Why must everything be 'free market'." I assumed you wanted an answer. As far as the individual quersion, I think I covered it above.
>>
>>In that case I understand the confusion.