What is single payer?

If you don’t like the Oxford definition here is the American Webster’s one.
Quote, Absence of government a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

You simply cannot grant anarchy for yourself without still being subject to the same laws that exist for everyone around you. Whether you like it or not you are subject to the laws that bind the whole nation. Sure, you can ignore them if you are prepared to suffer the consequences.

Don’t believe me? Try evading the law by saying to a judge ‘I am an anarchist so your laws don’t apply to me’. I admire your courage, but you will still suffer the penalty for breaking the law.

Quote: But the fact is, I am free, a free spirit and government operates to try to rule my life.
So, if someone beats the XXXX out of you will exalt his freedom to do so because he is also a ‘free spirit.

 

It was not.

an- (1)
privative prefix, from Greek an-, "not, without," related to ne- and cognate with Sanskrit an-, Latin in-, Gothic and Old English un- (see un- (1)).

archon (n.)
one of the nine chief magistrates of ancient Athens, 1650s, from Greek arkhon "ruler," noun use of present participle of arkhein "to rule," from PIE *arkhein- "to begin, rule, command," a "Gk. verb of unknown origin, but showing archaic Indo-European features ... with derivatives arkhe, 'rule, beginning,' and arkhos, 'ruler' " [Watkins].


In the same sense that "atheism" has always literally meant nothing more than "without god", "anarchy" has always literally meant nothing more than "without ruler".

The extrinsic clause "absolute freedom of the individual" is a paradox defended by no one.

In my experience, trying to get people to acknowledge what you mean by that word results in nothing better than a semantic quagmire, especially once an obstinate person has dug his heels in. Since the word per se is not really what you stand for, it may be better to let it go.

Also, any person who refuses to allow you to define your own terms is behaving irrationally and should not be afforded the same respect as a reasonable person.

 

What this has to do with anarchy I have no idea but being asked questions it’s only polite to answer them.


Do you understand brotherly love?
Yes.

Do you call government to deal with your neighbors?
No, I may call the police if it’s necessary to do so.

I wonder when you drive are you on your cell phone reporting others?
Not in the UK where using a cell phone when driving incurs a hefty fine and six points on your license.

Do you look for those you think break laws?
No, why should I? We have police to do the job and their pretty good at it.

Why must you see your own neighbors in such an unfriendly light?
Did I ever say I did?

They want freedom. But you do not want them to get it.
You seem obsessed by the freedom word. When will you realise that the amount of freedom you have is directly governed by your bank balance, not by me.

While true, you can encounter what we know of as criminals. And if allowed, you will get harmed. But who do you call when you need that, .357 to confront crime?
I have no idea on what you’re on about, if you mean would I report a crime yes, don’t you?

The cops? Cops investigate crimes. They can't really stop them.
Of course the can do both, please think before you write.

I can pull a trigger quicker than you can dial 911. And my aim is lethal.
Ah! the All American Hero I wondered how long it would be before he turned up.
I’ve got a gun; I can sort out any problem. I recall your 2nd question I bet your neighbours love you. Try that in the UK and you would be serving a very long jail sentence.

 

I see, your explanation is better than two world renowned dictionaries. We live and learn.

 

I really don't try to compare the British version of freedom then try to compare it to the USA brand. As I understand it, you do not have a constitution.

 

Oh but we do have the Magna Carta June 1215, but no one quotes that now, pity as it would allow us to arm our civilians and shoot ourselves.

 

Some people need a ruler. They would have no idea what to do without commandments handed down from on high. They don't consider the fact that seats of "high office" are manufactured and held by fearful, self-interested humans just like them.

 

If Trump moves in such a direction, I will be the very first to oppose him. The war crimes of WW2 were atrocious and should never happen again. I find war itself to be an atrocity and if one were to implicate a "capitalist system" in anything, we all know that war is benefited from the defense contractors and lobbyists from there(see: Haliburton.)

If all humans just avowed from war and said "we wouldn't do it", what are they going to do? Pout?

 

you mean liberals need a ruler which explains why our liberals spied for Stalin, elected Obama/Sanders, and always want to make the govt rulers more and more powerful- right?

 

No, they need a structured society where they can enjoy life without looking over their shoulders for gun toting idiots.

 

Nope, you both need rulers. You both believe, contrary to historical reality, that law comes from on high, and your both trying to build towers to reach it.

 

You need a ruler too. Unless you happen to live in a cabin off the grid

 

I do not classify Halliburton a defense contractor. They did have an emergency contract, dating to Bill Clinton, that gave the Army Corps of Engineers a bid contract with very small profit margin.

But for some odd reason, this qualified them for poster trashing.

I may be not correct but I don't recall the media being anti Halliburton as the Democratgs were. Funny since it was a Democrat administration that signed the contract.

I urge those wanting the truth study the Federal program called LOGCAP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOGCAP

Fluor today has the program and does exactly what Halliburton did.

It was the KBR division when owned by Halliburton that caught the scorn of Democrat posters.

 

Post limit thread closure. Feel free to start #2

Shangrila
Moderator