Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[LOki]

Not really.

But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.

I believed what you said in Post 572.

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

 

[Arianrhod]

Not really.

But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.

I believed what you said in Post 572.

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

 

[dblack]

Personally I'd look at what those existing statutes have or have not accomplished.

I have, that's why I object to some of them so strenuously.

 

[dblack]

Not really.

But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.

I believed what you said in Post 572.

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

 

[LOki]

Not really.

But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.

I believed what you said in Post 572.

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

So much for you not making your dumb mistake again.

Sorry about your luck, Princess.

 

[Arianrhod]

I believed what you said in Post 572.

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

No, but if you're going to quote someone without knowing anything about them, you could end up conveying a message that's the opposite of what you intend.

For example, there's "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." It's been variously attributed to Goebbels, Göring, Marx, and Lenin. Who actually said it, and does the source affect the meaning of the words themselves?

 

[LOki]

I believed what you said in Post 572.

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

No. Inferring that I'm an anarchist is a suitable distraction from addressing the point of the quote.

 

[LOki]

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

No, but if you're going to quote someone without knowing anything about them, you could end up conveying a message that's the opposite of what you intend.

For example, there's "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." It's been variously attributed to Goebbels, Göring, Marx, and Lenin. Who actually said it, and does the source affect the meaning of the words themselves?

And when you wax knowing where you're entirely ignorant; and you fill your place of ignorance with fabrications from your imagination, you expose yourself as a disingenuous retard.

It's time for you to level up, Princess.

 

[dblack]

What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

No, but if you're going to quote someone without knowing anything about them, you could end up conveying a message that's the opposite of what you intend.

I certainly don't think that was the case in this instance. Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?

 

[Arianrhod]

Summing up, then, the message from the Very Angry Rightists is: "I had no idea how health insurance worked until the PPACA was passed, so I had no idea that I was already paying for other people's medical bills in the pass-through to my own bills as well as my insurance premiums. What I'm really pissed about is the fact that this thread has pointed out my ignorance, so I'm gonna keep posting in it anyway."

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

...Princess...

Please stop hitting on me. I'm not your type. You'd have better luck with Cecilie.

 

[Arianrhod]

Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

 

[LOki]

Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

You see? Perhaps I'm not an anarchist then... I'm no fan of bullies either.

But I have to point out to you Princess, you did not address the point of the quote.

Why is that?

Here, I'll do you a solid, and provide it for you again for reference:

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." --Lysander Spooner​

 

[Arianrhod]

Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

You see? Perhaps I'm not an anarchist then... I'm no fan of bullies either.

But I have to point out to you Princess, you did not address the point of the quote.

Why is that?

Is there a poster here named Princess? That would explain the confusion.

 

[LOki]

Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

You see? Perhaps I'm not an anarchist then... I'm no fan of bullies either.

But I have to point out to you Princess, you did not address the point of the quote.

Why is that?

Is there a poster here named Princess? That would explain the confusion.

No, Princess. It's your fairy tale; where you're the Princess, and your notions about all things are inherently valid because... Princess!

And you don't have to actually address any actual point made, because... Princess!

There's no confusion Princess; you're a princess.

 

[Arianrhod]

When LOki is finished talking to his Imaginary Friend and wants to talk to Arianrhod, he'll start by reading and responding to Post 611. Until then, Arianrhod will smile benevolently and ignore LOki's pleas for attention.

 

[LOki]

When LOki is finished talking to his Imaginary Friend and wants to talk to Arianrhod, he'll start by reading and responding to Post 611. Until then, Arianrhod will smile benevolently and ignore LOki's pleas for attention.

Oh. You submit that you have no rebuttal to my point.

You should have just said so, Princess.

Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it.

I'm no revolutionary, so I don't subscribe to overthrowing governments.

Also, I've never said that government is intrinsically evil. You're ascibing to me positions I don't hold.

I will throw you this bone, however: the application of government is intrinsically violent. The means of government is the application of raw lethal aggression to achieve ends.

The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

I'm still under no obligation to defend positions you assign to me.

You should apply some of your own glitter-magic to yourself, Princess. If you read what anarchists (like Spooner for instance) actually say, rather than make it up from nothing (per your idiom), you might discover that they in fact do provide you with "...what happens next."

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

This is so embarrassing.... fix your dress Princess, your intellectual sloth is showing.

If you had bothered to read what anarchists actually say; if you had bothered to find out what they're actually about-- from sources other than your disinformed imagination-- you might discover that your presumptions and prejudices are entirely inappropriate.

No fear you'll make the attempt; it's not what a Princess does.

I'm sorry if I couldn't answer all your questions, Princess; I'm just not qualified to play the role you made up for me.

 

[Arianrhod]

It's amazing how far this thread has ventured - from health insurance to education to discussions of anarchy, etc.

It's also revealed that one of our members has extensive conversations with an Imaginary Friend. I hope he has health insurance.

 

[dblack]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

 

[Arianrhod]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means? What am I missing?

 

[LOki]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means? What am I missing?

Everything.

You discussed what some anarchists --

-- fail to address.

You mention nothing of anything posited in the quote.

Try again.