This is a refreshing formulation: "freedom from choice", something quite different from a "right to choose".

"The right to..." has become such an inflationary term that it's become absurd for me. What I'm supposed to be entitled to really doesn't fit into a skull. In any case, most of the things that excite my mind in daily life are not worth mentioning or my thoughts, because they have already lost their meaning in intervals of two days or four weeks. This is clearly to be seen in my own irritation about a heated argument, which I continued inwardly, while some time later the events took on their own dynamics and change changed my view of a topic or rather irritated me with my own excitement.

I found your comparison with the health insurance very vivid and accurate. What a successful example to illustrate your topic.

How can nations actually be in conflict with each other? After all, they are not individual entities that can live, breathe, feel and think independently. Which identity is in conflict are probably individual mentalities, which by their political existence and choice feel entitled by the people to start a war. The necessity of warfare is heavily defended by many people.

Meanwhile I am imbued with the matter that actually not a single person wants war or welcomes it joyfully. Why it is practised, however, is a great riddle. After all, people or even the decision-makers themselves do not stand up and blissfully shout: "Hooray, we have war! Let us celebrate! How wonderful that people and living beings are guaranteed to die, such a festival! Let the games begin! ...
... Perhaps the better variant, where only those who want to risk their skin and take a frivolous approach to the battle, where they can safely assume that their opponents will play the deadly game with an equally light heart? Of course, weapons of mass destruction should not be used, that goes without saying.

Making profits through war or illness or any kind of dysfunction is a strange thing to imagine. In a text that is based on Buddhism, I read the following (to get serious again):

The monotheistic world religions but also the world view of modernity are fatally influenced by this philosophical heritage of Greek antiquity. They are caught in the illusion of being able to take hold of, control and appropriate reality itself as "being" (the concept). According to Buddhist view, however, this is precisely the mental basis for war and violence.

The religious form of this today is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism believes to know how God and the world is and what is good and right for all of us. It makes itself the trustee of God. Fundamentalism is a juxtaposition of either/or, emphasizing enmity and readiness to fight, making its own claim to truth absolute. That is why fundamentalism claims that peace and non-violence means to relativize everything and to say yes to everything.

But this is not peace, but arbitrariness. And arbitrariness is an expression of disinterest and ignorance. Intolerance and ignorance, aggressive fundamentalism and unbridled liberalism belong closely together, produce each other. This is clearly shown by the current state of the world in the global war between Islamist fundamentalism and missionary anarcho-capitalism.

source: http://www.buddhanetz.org/texte/texte.htm

Happy new year to you. Greetings from Germany.