[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

[/ QUOTE ]

false. no government does imply something else, whether de facto or by principle. What does no government mean otherwise?

The absence of government is not a description of anarchy until youve defined government. The definition of government will leave clear implications for how anarchy must be if the one society exists in contrast to the other. Explain how society can play out without a government and by what measures can the society be perverted to be considered under government rule again?

There must be clear lines to call one society governed by another not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bunch of obvious gibberish that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it does. this response you're giving now is gibberish and has nothing to do with what i said.

i'll repeat, you write: "It doesn't imply anything about property."

and my response, in more detail, is that anarchy assumes property of individuality and assumes some variety of property extension. The use of air, the use of the land you stand on, etc.