Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[kaz]

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

View attachment 191631

From an anarchist. Now that's funny.

Tell me again how I microaggressed you by disagreeing with your opinion.

Clearly why your arguments are consistently based on cartoons ...

Your arguments are cartoonish. That's why his graphic stings so much.

I'm just laughing at you now

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from the laws of nature. Food doesn't appear from nothing by magic. Someone has to grow it, harvest it and send it to market. The same goes for clothes, housing, medical care and everything else you consume. That means humans have to work.

Freedom refers to being constrained by other humans, not the laws of nature. If you were genuinely a libertarian, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

The laws of nature says we have to grow food, make clothes, have houses and medical care?

Go tell that to the fucking bear in the woods!

Damn, you are one stupid MoFo.

You addressed nothing I said yet spent two days whining like a 12 year old girl about others doing that.

But what else can one expect from a Trump zealots that claims to be an anarchist!

 

[bripat9643]

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

And they don't give a shit what other security firms think. They care what their customers think. Your view that companies wouldn't try to differentiate themselves to serve a market segment is wow ... massively stupid. And even more naive.

So are you moving out in 24 hours? You got the notice. Or are they going to kill you and your family?

A company is going to differentiate itself by preying on the customers of other security agencies? Really? And you believe those other agencies wouldn't feel threatened by such a business model?

Talk about being massively stupid and even more naive

Other companies don't give a shit about protecting you, Virginia

You obviously are too fucking dumb to understand what I'm saying. They care about protecting their customers. If they stop doing that, they soon won't have any customers. You're believe that intelligent people are going to stand around with their thumbs up their ass will some security company converts to a criminal gang that preys on their customers is too stupid for words to describe.

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from the laws of nature. Food doesn't appear from nothing by magic. Someone has to grow it, harvest it and send it to market. The same goes for clothes, housing, medical care and everything else you consume. That means humans have to work.

Freedom refers to being constrained by other humans, not the laws of nature. If you were genuinely a libertarian, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

The laws of nature says we have to grow food, make clothes, have houses and medical care?

Go tell that to the fucking bear in the woods!

Damn, you are one stupid MoFo.

You addressed nothing I said yet spent two days whining like a 12 year old girl about others doing that.

But what else can one expect from a Trump zealots that claims to be an anarchist!

Go into the woods with no clothing, tools, weapons or food, and see how long you survive.

 

[kaz]

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

And they don't give a shit what other security firms think. They care what their customers think. Your view that companies wouldn't try to differentiate themselves to serve a market segment is wow ... massively stupid. And even more naive.

So are you moving out in 24 hours? You got the notice. Or are they going to kill you and your family?

A company is going to differentiate itself by preying on the customers of other security agencies? Really? And you believe those other agencies wouldn't feel threatened by such a business model?

Talk about being massively stupid and even more naive

Other companies don't give a shit about protecting you, Virginia

You obviously too fucking dumb to understand what I'm saying. They care about protecting their customers. If they stop coing that, they soon won't have any customers. You're believe that intelligent people are going to stand around with their thumbs up their ass will some security company converts to a criminal gang that preys on their customers is too stupid for words to describe.

You're a joke, little boy. Leftists on the board always inform me how rich they are. You can be anything you want on the internet. So whatever.

But you have no idea what companies would do for money. I do both professionally and personally.

I'm just laughing at you that you think companies will behave when rich companies and people are willing to pay them to not behave.

You're completely over your head. Here's your bottle. Or in your and oddballs case should I say bwattle?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from the laws of nature. Food doesn't appear from nothing by magic. Someone has to grow it, harvest it and send it to market. The same goes for clothes, housing, medical care and everything else you consume. That means humans have to work.

Freedom refers to being constrained by other humans, not the laws of nature. If you were genuinely a libertarian, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

The laws of nature says we have to grow food, make clothes, have houses and medical care?

Go tell that to the fucking bear in the woods!

Damn, you are one stupid MoFo.

You addressed nothing I said yet spent two days whining like a 12 year old girl about others doing that.

But what else can one expect from a Trump zealots that claims to be an anarchist!

Go into the woods with no clothing, tools, weapons or food, and see how long you survive.

Oh wait, so the laws of nature to not apply to the bears and other things living in nature, just us.

Gotcha!

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from the laws of nature. Food doesn't appear from nothing by magic. Someone has to grow it, harvest it and send it to market. The same goes for clothes, housing, medical care and everything else you consume. That means humans have to work.

Freedom refers to being constrained by other humans, not the laws of nature. If you were genuinely a libertarian, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

The laws of nature says we have to grow food, make clothes, have houses and medical care?

Go tell that to the fucking bear in the woods!

Damn, you are one stupid MoFo.

You addressed nothing I said yet spent two days whining like a 12 year old girl about others doing that.

But what else can one expect from a Trump zealots that claims to be an anarchist!

Go into the woods with no clothing, tools, weapons or food, and see how long you survive.

Oh wait, so the laws of nature to not apply to the bears and other things living in nature, just us.

Gotcha!

Is that your way of saying you're afraid to go into the woods and live like a bear?

Humans aren't like other animals. We suriveby making tools and modifying our environment. You're free to live like an animal if you want. Even that takes work. However, to live like a human at least some of us have to work.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is that your way of saying you're afraid to go into the woods and live like a bear?

Humans aren't like other animals. We suriveby making tools and modifying our environment. You're free to live like an animal if you want. Even that takes work. However, to live like a human at least some of us have to work.

Would a human not have more freedom if they lived totally off the land and did not have to answer to a boss and pay a grocery store for their food? A house limits your freedom to get up and go when and where ever you want.

Were not the native americans more free than we make ourselves today?

All I am saying is that humans put restrictions on our own freedoms all the time

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Things that are absolute can never change, yet morals are in a constant state of flux.

I think i might have been mis-speaking in how i'm referring to this according to the definition of the word "moral." Societies don't have a set of morals, they have a set of values by which they operate, and those values are either moral or immoral (or somewhere in between). So, my apologies for how i was conveying the message but the message is still the same.

What's in flux are those values, and values are either informed by or disregarding of morality. The definition of "value" in this context from Merriam Webster is: something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable. So, a given society may say that "killing Jews is valuable because they're subhuman and so on and so forth." That society may deem that valuable, but it doesn't make it moral, which the definition of "moral" is: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. Is killing someone solely based on their religion a "principle of right behavior?" Absolutely not.

What's not in flux is what absolute morality is. Humans' ability to discover, interpret and live by true/absolute morality is definitely what's in flux. Where i agree with you is that Anarchy won't be truly sustainable societal model until humans can both identify absolute morality and subsequently live by it in vast, vast majorities. That very well may never happen.

Here is the most important thing, and it often gets lost in the shuffle: The value of these conversations is not merely to determine what is true and best so we can carve it on a tablet and proudly say, “There - that’s what is right.” The more meaningful work is to determine where we should stand, and what we should do, as individuals.

What you say is true - anarchy won’t be a sustainable model until morality is embraced in thought, emotion, and action. But with the aforementioned acknowledgement in mind, we are not to wait until others come around, then jump on board because the world is finally “ready”. If that is our approach, that day will never come.

If we truly understand human rights, we must recognize that external authority is not just a “bad idea” but that it does not, and can not, validly exist; and to pretend that it does is to literally “abandon reason for madness.”

As such, we must complete the trivium process and achieve true wisdom by bringing our actions into alignment with our knowledge and understanding. We thus become one more light in the darkness, one more invaluable stone on the scale. In this way, we contribute to bringing that seemingly far-off goal just a little bit closer.

By our words and our example, others will be inspired. By our action or inaction we will determine the future. We can feel that something is bubbling under the surface of our culture. Many know that something is wrong, but misplace their indignation. America will be called upon, yet again, to teach the world of freedom.

The next phase of the great experiment will bring tumult and trials, and in their confusion, many will look with trepidation upon their neighbors; seeking guidance, courage, and conviction. The question that each of us must answer is: “What will they see when they turn to look at me?”

 

[bripat9643]

Is that your way of saying you're afraid to go into the woods and live like a bear?

Humans aren't like other animals. We suriveby making tools and modifying our environment. You're free to live like an animal if you want. Even that takes work. However, to live like a human at least some of us have to work.

Would a human not have more freedom if they lived totally off the land and did not have to answer to a boss and pay a grocery store for their food? A house limits your freedom to get up and go when and where ever you want.

Were not the native americans more free than we make ourselves today?

All I am saying is that humans put restrictions on our own freedoms all the time

I'm not going to continue responding to your idiocies.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm not going to continue responding to your idiocies.

In other words you have been beat down once again and now you are going to run to your safe space and draw some unicorn pictures.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It seems there is some disagreement on what freedom means as well.

So, what is "freedom", in your own view of course.

 

[bripat9643]

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

And they don't give a shit what other security firms think. They care what their customers think. Your view that companies wouldn't try to differentiate themselves to serve a market segment is wow ... massively stupid. And even more naive.

So are you moving out in 24 hours? You got the notice. Or are they going to kill you and your family?

A company is going to differentiate itself by preying on the customers of other security agencies? Really? And you believe those other agencies wouldn't feel threatened by such a business model?

Talk about being massively stupid and even more naive

Other companies don't give a shit about protecting you, Virginia

You obviously too fucking dumb to understand what I'm saying. They care about protecting their customers. If they stop coing that, they soon won't have any customers. You're believe that intelligent people are going to stand around with their thumbs up their ass will some security company converts to a criminal gang that preys on their customers is too stupid for words to describe.

You're a joke, little boy. Leftists on the board always inform me how rich they are. You can be anything you want on the internet. So whatever.

But you have no idea what companies would do for money. I do both professionally and personally.

I'm just laughing at you that you think companies will behave when rich companies and people are willing to pay them to not behave.

You're completely over your head. Here's your bottle. Or in your and oddballs case should I say bwattle?

There are plenty of wealthy people right now who would pay some security company from becoming a criminal gang. What's stopping them?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not going to continue responding to your idiocies.

In other words you have been beat down once again and now you are going to run to your safe space and draw some unicorn pictures.

No, you're responses are just to infantile and moronic to bother with. Everyone viewing this thread can see that you're wrong without me pointing it out.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems there is some disagreement on what freedom means as well.

So, what is "freedom", in your own view of course.

Libertarians all agree on what freedom means, but you don't know?

More proof that you're no libertarian.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding YOUR behavior. If you accept the validity of this claim, then you are obliged to obey under any and all circumstances - even where it conflicts with your own moral standards. Is there any instance where you would place your own judgement above your government's law? If so, then you do not recognize its claim to authority as valid.

I disagree with the premise that governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding MY behavior. It is not the government that keeps me from robbing a bank or killing my neighbor. Those are things I would not do regardless of the government.

If you believe you have the right to decide when to obey - to pick and choose - then it is not authority, just a suggestion.

I reject this premise as well. I do not know if you are a parent or not, but as a parent I have authority over my children (while they were children), but they did pick and choose and often faced the consequences of those choices. Does this mean that a parent has no authority?

I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, I had people in authority over me and I was in authority over other people. Never once was that authority absolute either direction. If I was given an order that I felt was unlawful it was my duty to ignore it (and it did happen) just as if I gave an order that was deemed unlawful then it was to be ignored.

If authority has to be absolute to be authority, then there will never be such a thing as we are not robots but humans with free will. Even in your utopia there would be no authority, which is what I said anarchy was and I was told that was incorrect.

And if you don't even recognize their authority as valid, what right do you have to support government as an authority over anyone else? To do so is to suggest that you have a right to decide when to obey, but everyone else doesn't. It's an assertion of an inequality of rights; in which case you must prove a basis for this distinction between you and the other 325 million people who you are subjecting to an invalid governmental authority by your support.

I recognize their authority as valid, but not absolute. Nobody will ever had absolute authority over me, but me. NO matter what system is in place.

Precisely. Nobody has absolute authority over you. You want to say they have authority, it’s just not absolute, but what does this really mean? It means you decide in every instance what you will do, whether you will obey their commands or not. So where is their authority? What power does it exert? None at all. You are the only authority over you.

So no, the parent does not have authority over the child. The officer does not have authority over his subordinates. There is only an illusion of authority, a smoke-and-mirrors display that is only maintained by the willingness of the subordinate to forget who’s in charge.

Now, you may choose to embrace the illusion, as per your well-established absolute authority over yourself; but do you claim such authority over me? Over my children? Over anyone else but yourself?

You are reasonable enough to recognize that, no, surely you have no such authority over me, any more than I have over you. So why will you not bring your actions into alignment with your own knowledge and understanding? Why will you vote for someone to act out this charade of invalid authority over me? Why will you support a system based on a premise you know to be false?

There is only one reason - fear, and the resultant desire for control. If, by your actions, you acknowledge my absolute authority over myself, I may do something you won’t like, or even something that may hurt you. This you cannot abide. And so you will lower yourself to live a lie; to support an illusion, an injustice that has been dangled before you as a temptation. A sword, to wield against your brother, so that you may draw his blood before he can draw yours.

And high above circles the vulture, mouth watering with every stroke. You have given him his meal, and worse, knew what you were doing and did it anyway.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding YOUR behavior. If you accept the validity of this claim, then you are obliged to obey under any and all circumstances - even where it conflicts with your own moral standards. Is there any instance where you would place your own judgement above your government's law? If so, then you do not recognize its claim to authority as valid.

I disagree with the premise that governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding MY behavior. It is not the government that keeps me from robbing a bank or killing my neighbor. Those are things I would not do regardless of the government.

If you believe you have the right to decide when to obey - to pick and choose - then it is not authority, just a suggestion.

I reject this premise as well. I do not know if you are a parent or not, but as a parent I have authority over my children (while they were children), but they did pick and choose and often faced the consequences of those choices. Does this mean that a parent has no authority?

I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, I had people in authority over me and I was in authority over other people. Never once was that authority absolute either direction. If I was given an order that I felt was unlawful it was my duty to ignore it (and it did happen) just as if I gave an order that was deemed unlawful then it was to be ignored.

If authority has to be absolute to be authority, then there will never be such a thing as we are not robots but humans with free will. Even in your utopia there would be no authority, which is what I said anarchy was and I was told that was incorrect.

And if you don't even recognize their authority as valid, what right do you have to support government as an authority over anyone else? To do so is to suggest that you have a right to decide when to obey, but everyone else doesn't. It's an assertion of an inequality of rights; in which case you must prove a basis for this distinction between you and the other 325 million people who you are subjecting to an invalid governmental authority by your support.

I recognize their authority as valid, but not absolute. Nobody will ever had absolute authority over me, but me. NO matter what system is in place.

Precisely. Nobody has absolute authority over you. You want to say they have authority, it’s just not absolute, but what does this really mean? It means you decide in every instance what you will do, whether you will obey their commands or not. So where is their authority? What power does it exert? None at all. You are the only authority over you.

So no, the parent does not have authority over the child. The officer does not have authority over his subordinates. There is only an illusion of authority, a smoke-and-mirrors display that is only maintained by the willingness of the subordinate to forget who’s in charge.

Now, you may choose to embrace the illusion, as per your well-established absolute authority over yourself; but do you claim such authority over me? Over my children? Over anyone else but yourself?

You are reasonable enough to recognize that, no, surely you have no such authority over me, any more than I have over you. So why will you not bring your actions into alignment with your own knowledge and understanding? Why will you vote for someone to act out this charade of invalid authority over me? Why will you support a system based on a premise you know to be false?

There is only one reason - fear, and the resultant desire for control. If, by your actions, you acknowledge my absolute authority over myself, I may do something you won’t like, or even something that may hurt you. This you cannot abide. And so you will lower yourself to live a lie; to support an illusion, an injustice that has been dangled before you as a temptation. A sword, to wield against your brother, so that you may draw his blood before he can draw yours.

And high above circles the vulture, mouth watering with every stroke. You have given him his meal, and worse, knew what you were doing and did it anyway.

We have now come full circle back to my original definition of anarchy, the nonrecognition of authority. Since there is no authority, in your view other than that we have over ourselves, there is no society.

A society needs rules and order, but rules and order require submitting to an authority other than yourself.

Money become meaningless, as who has the authority to say how much that money is worth? Each human decides for themselves how much the money is worth since they authority of themselves and nobody else.

Why should I pay attention to the stop sign, it has no authority over me.

With this view, you have no authority to tell me that the land you are standing on is your private property. You can tell yourself it is yours, but you cannot tell me or anyone and if you do, we have no reason to listen to you. We now have total chaos, which is what I have stated anarchy was from the beginning.

If there is no authority other than yourself, then there is nothing that is off limits, everything is fair game and nobody can complain to anyone else, as they have no authority to tell them they are wrong.

If there is no authority but self, then morals a meaningless word, there is only what each individual feels is right.

An employer has no authority to tell an employe what to do or how to do it, the employee can just do whatever they want.

A woman can tell a man not to rape her, but she has no authority to make him stop so he does not need to listen.

Yes indeed, 138 pages, more than 1000 post and we are back to you proving my original view of anarchy was correct after all!

That calls for a nice IPA!

Have a great night!

 

[bripat9643]

It seems there is some disagreement on what freedom means as well.

So, what is "freedom", in your own view of course.

Libertarians all agree on what freedom means, but you don't know?

More proof that you're no libertarian.

God you are a moron, nobody all agree with anything. You are such a child


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Really? So Christians don't all agree that Christ was the son of God?

The Non agression principle is the fundamental tenant of the libertarian philosophy. If you don't endorse it, then you are not a libertarian. You don't even know what it means, and then you have the gall to tell me what libertarians believe.

 

[bripat9643]

Governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding YOUR behavior. If you accept the validity of this claim, then you are obliged to obey under any and all circumstances - even where it conflicts with your own moral standards. Is there any instance where you would place your own judgement above your government's law? If so, then you do not recognize its claim to authority as valid.

I disagree with the premise that governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding MY behavior. It is not the government that keeps me from robbing a bank or killing my neighbor. Those are things I would not do regardless of the government.

If you believe you have the right to decide when to obey - to pick and choose - then it is not authority, just a suggestion.

I reject this premise as well. I do not know if you are a parent or not, but as a parent I have authority over my children (while they were children), but they did pick and choose and often faced the consequences of those choices. Does this mean that a parent has no authority?

I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, I had people in authority over me and I was in authority over other people. Never once was that authority absolute either direction. If I was given an order that I felt was unlawful it was my duty to ignore it (and it did happen) just as if I gave an order that was deemed unlawful then it was to be ignored.

If authority has to be absolute to be authority, then there will never be such a thing as we are not robots but humans with free will. Even in your utopia there would be no authority, which is what I said anarchy was and I was told that was incorrect.

And if you don't even recognize their authority as valid, what right do you have to support government as an authority over anyone else? To do so is to suggest that you have a right to decide when to obey, but everyone else doesn't. It's an assertion of an inequality of rights; in which case you must prove a basis for this distinction between you and the other 325 million people who you are subjecting to an invalid governmental authority by your support.

I recognize their authority as valid, but not absolute. Nobody will ever had absolute authority over me, but me. NO matter what system is in place.

Precisely. Nobody has absolute authority over you. You want to say they have authority, it’s just not absolute, but what does this really mean? It means you decide in every instance what you will do, whether you will obey their commands or not. So where is their authority? What power does it exert? None at all. You are the only authority over you.

So no, the parent does not have authority over the child. The officer does not have authority over his subordinates. There is only an illusion of authority, a smoke-and-mirrors display that is only maintained by the willingness of the subordinate to forget who’s in charge.

Now, you may choose to embrace the illusion, as per your well-established absolute authority over yourself; but do you claim such authority over me? Over my children? Over anyone else but yourself?

You are reasonable enough to recognize that, no, surely you have no such authority over me, any more than I have over you. So why will you not bring your actions into alignment with your own knowledge and understanding? Why will you vote for someone to act out this charade of invalid authority over me? Why will you support a system based on a premise you know to be false?

There is only one reason - fear, and the resultant desire for control. If, by your actions, you acknowledge my absolute authority over myself, I may do something you won’t like, or even something that may hurt you. This you cannot abide. And so you will lower yourself to live a lie; to support an illusion, an injustice that has been dangled before you as a temptation. A sword, to wield against your brother, so that you may draw his blood before he can draw yours.

And high above circles the vulture, mouth watering with every stroke. You have given him his meal, and worse, knew what you were doing and did it anyway.

We have now come full circle back to my original definition of anarchy, the nonrecognition of authority. Since there is no authority, in your view other than that we have over ourselves, there is no society.

A society needs rules and order, but rules and order require submitting to an authority other than yourself.

Money become meaningless, as who has the authority to say how much that money is worth? Each human decides for themselves how much the money is worth since they authority of themselves and nobody else.

Why should I pay attention to the stop sign, it has no authority over me.

With this view, you have no authority to tell me that the land you are standing on is your private property. You can tell yourself it is yours, but you cannot tell me or anyone and if you do, we have no reason to listen to you. We now have total chaos, which is what I have stated anarchy was from the beginning.

If there is no authority other than yourself, then there is nothing that is off limits, everything is fair game and nobody can complain to anyone else, as they have no authority to tell them they are wrong.

If there is no authority but self, then morals a meaningless word, there is only what each individual feels is right.

An employer has no authority to tell an employe what to do or how to do it, the employee can just do whatever they want.

A woman can tell a man not to rape her, but she has no authority to make him stop so he does not need to listen.

Yes indeed, 138 pages, more than 1000 post and we are back to you proving my original view of anarchy was correct after all!

That calls for a nice IPA!

Have a great night!

Your definition of anarchy doesn't matter one bit to this discussion. You don't get to define the term. You're a bonehead who thinks he can win by redefining terms. All you proved is that you're a witless fool.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Really? So Christians don't all agree that Christ was the son of God?

Nope, they sure do not, you moron. But thanks for showing your ignorance once again.

The Non agression principle is the fundamental tenant of the libertarian philosophy. If you don't endorse it, then you are not a libertarian. You don't even know what it means, and then you have the gall to tell me what libertarians believe.

Dude, you are a guy that is a cheerleader for Trump and then joins a thread and calls himself an anarchist. The two cannot go together, yet here you are trying to tell other people what they know and what the mean.

Your duplicity of kissing the ass of the leader of the government while at the same time claiming to be against all government renders anything you have to say on this topic null and void.