[extropy-chat] What are rights

[Damien Sullivan]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:45:24AM -0500, Tark wrote:

>    determine which is best. E.g. Living in the US in some cities is
>    inherently more dangerous than living anywhere in the UK. Indeed,
>    living in Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, and some other large cities
>    is statistically more dangerous for 21-39 year old males than
>    patrolling Baghdad with the Marines. There are also culturally more

But the differences hold even if we look only at whites, or at females
-- in fact the cross-country difference is bigger for females than for
males.

>    risk-takers in the US than most comparable countries; witness the
>    recent phenomena of extreme sports which didn't start in Europe. US

The difference also holds for life expectancy at age 60.

>    citizens travel more frequently and longer to work than most other
>    countries (just an outcome of population densities) The most
>    comparable countries would be Russia, China, and Canada, however
>    Canada has a much lower death rate from violence. The other two
>    examples belie the argument for socialized health care. (note: I am
>    discounting Australia because it's largely undeveloped and
>    under-populated once you leave the coastlines, if you go to JPL the

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.  Canada is "undeveloped
and under-populated" if you go 100 miles north of the US.  Russia is
probably under-populated in Siberia, though undeveloped overall.  The US
seems under-populated in much of the West -- though like Australia and
Canada, the "under-" is misleading; the areas simply aren't that
hospitable.

Russia and China don't belie the case, anyway; no one calls for
imitating them, but for Canada or France or Sweden or Australia or...
rich, developed, democratic and capitalist countries, not poor
underdeveloped autocracies.

-xx- Damien X-)