I can agree with that, k. That makes this a broader or deeper question. It is a matter of anthropology: all cultures have a,b,c..., x,y,z. All cultures have an institution of government, just as all have rites of passage, technology, language, and religion. If anarchism is a different form of government, then philosophy is a kind of religion, and atheism is a sect.

For those who interpret human relations in terms of dominance and submission (alpha leaders, beta followers), capitalism and socialism are both dominance-submission structures. You might disagree with the premise; maybe you explain dominance and submission - titles, handshaking, modes of introduction, the McDonald's order counter as a control structure demanding obedience - in some other broader system.

Anarchist Bob Black - Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Black - asserts in THE ABOLITION OF WORK that both capitalism and socialism are all about where you work and for whom you work. No one gets to enjoy life, unless you enjoy working for other people. I mention that just to point out that there are many ways to order the facts of society. So, if you want anarchy to be a kind of government, then you need to be explicit when you discuss these topics lest other people be left uncertain about your intentions.

The title of the post strikes me as an oxymoron.

That's where you are wrong. Ideas as opposed to processes pop up randomly and simultaneously all over the world without there being any connection between them. So if I and a few other neat freaks around the world happen to come up with the same thought of "let's find a way to trap a mouse" and each proceed to develop our own solutions to the problem, then we are not infringing on your property rights. If on the other hand MikeMarotta - sorry Mike :) - attempts to blatantly copy your design and manufacturing process, then you have a legitimate claim of property theft against him.

Maybe it helps to think in terms of homesteading. You simply can't in nature come up with a legitimate way to homestead thought. This is just a matter of practical reality.

you can have the idea all you want. But if you sell my patented idea, that's going to be a problem without a license

there is no such thing as "without government." as soon as you have an enforcement mechanism you have government. How it's funded is a separate question.

Well said. Once again it is mostly a matter of semantics. Let's say that I am the first human to come up with the idea of making a mouse trap. Retaining some or all of the design and manufacturing knowledge as my own is perfectly legitimate in a free market. While my particular PROCESS of trapping a mouse can be property, the actual IDEA of trapping a mouse on the other hand cannot be owned by me. The rub with the current setup is that the latter is being coercively done and that has produced the whole patent trolling mess we are now saddled with.

Khalling, you fallaciously extended the claims of one (or a few) self-identified "anarcho-capitalists", Roderick Long and others in and around the Mises Institute, with _all_ others of similar (but notably different) idea. I point you directly to THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY by Linda and Morris Tannehill, pages 58-59 which describes their suggestions for protecting intellectual property rights without government. Whether that is attainable is a different discussion but it is important that you realize that not all "anarchists" are opposed to patents.

patents. They are the only property right enumerated in the Constitution. They are the single most important reason billions of people have escaped out of the Malthusian Trap. Anarchists want them abolished. That means millions of property owners would lose rights. It's an important intellectual battle to "win."

Given your definition of anarchism as not supporting property, I totally agree with you. I want no part of that either. And that is exactly my point. Instead of quibbling over semantics, I prefer to latch on to practical ideas which result in greater freedom for us both.

I'm not sure who you are ranting at.
For myself," proving their particular interpretation of "Freedom" to be the one that trumps every one else's..."
its about property rights. I do care who "wins" these arguments, because "losing" may mean I lose rights. Supporting anarchism is a threat to my property rights.

Why is it that almost all who comment on these issues are invariably more interested in proving their particular interpretation of "Freedom" to be the one that trumps every one else's. When push comes to shove, I don't give a rodent's hindquarters who wins these largely semantic arguments.

You want to claim the intellectual high ground on the meaning of Freedom? Knock yourself out. For my part I just want to be successful at being free. So when I look at an idea, I am not interested in proving how wrong it is. I read everything with one purpose in mind - to glean from it what can help me in that quest.

Don't worry about being right about Freedom. Worry about being successful at Freedom, whatever it takes.

I don't know why you got voted down on an old topic discussion. We go through this often here. But neither am I going to rescue it. The problem with these anarcho-whatevers is that they are mired in rationalism, i.e., theoretical suppositions lacking in evidence. Suppose I said that the world should be run by libraries; librarians should be world governors. I can cite all the positives about libraries, but then admit that nowhere in the world was this ever done; but I can point to the lawful and orderly business in libraries and bookstores; and suggest that it might work... Or maybe the world should be run by pastry chefs. Who could refuse a nice cheesecake? ...

When they do have "evidence" it is always some esoteric time and place; and always a narrow window at that, i.e., a failure mode. From that article above:
"With that out of the way…I have written about anarchic – or at least vastly decentralized – societies that have existed in our past. Two such examples include the highland people of Southeast Asia and much of the European Middle Ages (here and here). These examples are found, obviously, in a much simpler time and place – not in anything resembling a complex division-of-labor society. In other words, while the “laws” might have been friendlier to my anarchic way of thinking, the successful application within a more complex society and global economy is, at minimum, in question."

That said, the fact is that we really do have such social structures here and now. We have them in exactly the areas needed, and claimed, by the anarcho-wishers: private security; and private adjudication. The two largest security firms, Securitas of Stockholm, and G4S of London, have rosters the size of the armies of France and Germany, both competing in about 30 nations. But unlike France and Germany. few private firms fire on each other. It is a matter of culture, which is the basis for law. In Africa private armies have and do carry out horrific wars. In Europe, not so much...

Similarly, adjudication, arbitration, and negotiation, are services commonly offered by law firms. Every anarcho-person must know the fine history of the American Arbitration Association. Read your own contracts for credit cards, or home loans, or even employment. You probably have several arbitration agreements in force right now.

Moreover, private law is successful: the Uniform Commercial Code was created whole by a self-appointed committee of jurists.

The anarcho-crowd never addresses these facts, either the actual reality of the structures they claim are "possible" (someday) or their very real _failures_ here and now. Failures, really, because the UCC seems not to apply to ISIS.

Some anarcho-utopians bashfully admit that for their system to work, the whole world (or much of it) would need to be committed to their Non Initiation of Force (NIOF) principle; and antecedent to that would be a commitment to reason and rights. Others assert that left to itself, the free market would impel toward peace, as it does toward prosperity. People would be economically rewarded and punished for rational behavior. It has never worked in the past; and it seems not to be working now. Every nation in the world has a glorious-sounding constitution. Few actually have rights by our standard. Even we are losing ours. The lootiing in Ferguson, Missouri, and the looting by police officers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, pretty much argue against the claim that external incentives shape human behavior. The door to motivation swings open from the inside.

We all honor ancient Athens as "the school of Hellas" even though they exiled Anaxagoras, tried Aspasia, and arranged the death of Socrates. We all honor the Renaissance in which glorious individualism was celebrated in wonderful new art for churches (even Protestants) that taught original sin as an unquestionable doctrine. Every radical in America puts their roots in the Revolution; except, maybe, those who were counted as 3/5 of a person. Perfection is always so hard to achieve...

Robert V. Hine's _California's Utopian Colonies_ tells of the failures of people who were highly motivated to succeed in a land that was arable, habitable, and hospitable.

The warning here, however, also applies to the Gulchers who think that they actually will live well, long, and happy with 50 of their ideologically pure comrades.