Love of the word is love of the source. It's about understanding the true structures of our world that the word describes. Its meaning is everywhere. Personally, I think the true nature of these structures is love and empathy. Love builds up; our belief that others have feelings just as valid as our own is how we decide what's 'real'. It is true that words are mere derivations, but they exist to illuminate the path back to the mystery and harmony.

Edit: word doesn't have to be grammar. can be any 'thing' as individuated from its surroundings. a unit of syntax: like a note in a song, a color in a painting, or a comma in a sentence. logos to gnosis.

For actually answering OP- perhaps the non-archical border would be the border that is self-conceived, but what that exactly is is not something I could describe. A border denotes difference, but I'm not sure any difference is self-conceived so much as derived from a broader whole. Maybe Taiji or Sophia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiji_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(Gnosticism)

Not OP but this is a great response. Reading discussion like this helps me feel more rounded.

What is your actual take? You condemn both state run healthcare and profit motives, but start by saying you support ancaps on this issue, despite also criticizing medical oligopolies. Local, community-run healthcare would be the ideal then? That seems like a few steps away and something that would be massively institutionally varied.

Not to mention a lot of this, like critiques of the medical establishments biases, have little to do with the exact provision structure of healthcare. This reads very slapdash. The reason people are picking and choosing one part or another to respond to is because it's so internally disconnected.

Also- the public healthcare 'wait times' thing is a right wing myth. Hospitals have average wait times for emergencies, surgeries, establishing primary care, and intakes. What has massive wait times are specialists. And there's a number of complex reasons for that, but in America specifically it would be less of an issue as we have more medical specialists than anywhere else on earth.

Your issues with poor people not having time or running into bureaucratic hurdles are completely unrelated to state/private healthcare, and are instead more a matter of how any given system curates patient records/provides intake assistance.

Edit: The content warning is also a bit strange considering that the post only mentions as much as the warning itself- i.e. that these things exist. It's even tagged CW: death and there's no reference to death in the post. I'm thinking lettuceLeafer is an elaborate troll guys- using leftist language to fracture actual discussion. block and move on. in general, be wary of any long, rambling post that doesn't propose solutions or give a clear opinion on its own content.

lmao it figures that they're just looking for a wedge to hawk their 'cybersecurity' software as a weapon to be used against the poor

edit: cybersecurity in quotes because the security comes by way of mass data harvesting. disgusting business.

Sounds like a matter of just rolling with the punches. It's not about any individual rich people or whatever, and especially not about their personal relationship with identity politics, race, or gender. Sorry you glanced off someone that was a dick in a capitalist system but that's all that happened.

I got a wooden model of a music box-driven orrery, a magnet my friend brought me from her home state, and pokemon ranger guardian signs for ds. :,)

My mom gifted me a kindle, which was great as well (amazon asides), as I've been a bit of a bookworm this year. All in all, I had a really swell Christmas, even if it wasn't made much of an event in 2021.

Edit: Oh and my brother got me Tolkien's unfinished tales. It was super thoughtful. ^^

Post-demagougical and your theory both seem pretty sound to me.

Expanding on your closer, I think it would take only one powerful state to arise before its neighbors would feel forced to define themselves in response to its pressure. The world would quickly become a series of pseudo-equal, national actors against all "other."

States could arise with a lot of unique nuances, but one can ruin it for everyone. The more states form, the less non-state peoples can ignore their existence.