Not a word of chaos. Makes me wonder. I need to ponder much more on the subject. This is one I will re read all comments thanks for every view.
Anarchism
Full Definition

1

:a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2

:the advocacy or practice ofanarchistic principles

Yes, action always has consequences, some good, some bad. But check any dictionary for today's "definition" of anarchy -- "chaos" is added always -- we can suppose by the many who cannot grasp truth and who fear being responsible for themselves.

Maybe in your household, but definitely not in mine.

Actions have consequences. Anarchy is not being defined as chaos, it is the result in almost all cases.

Amen!

While the article tries to be persuasive, it hinges upon several assertions that are facially false. dbhalling has already pointed several out, but I will echo several of his points as I add my own.

1. Government spectrum. I do agree with the author in pointing out that the spectrum is incorrect, however, I would leave anarchy off the spectrum entirely and put capitalism and representative government (least intrusive forms) on the far right with military dictatorships, fascism, communism, etc. on the left. The reason is that as soon as one engages in trade, one is forming a de facto government of sorts because one is agreeing on acceptable/moral behavior (acknowledgement or participation in "fair" trade). So true anarchy does not exist where groups of people are present. Thus proponents of anarchy as a societal structure are either illogical or subversive - merely masking a move towards totalitarian government (see Mao/China ca 1950). Even the very basic husband+wife pairing includes government (any sane man knows the woman is actually in charge =D).

2. Government as a coercive force by definition is patently false. Coercion is dismissed by assent. When one participates in government by accepting its authority (voting, proclaiming "long live the King", etc.), one is agreeing to be both protected by and subject to that government. Coercion ceases at that point. A military dictatorship is only coercive to those who do not give their consent to being ruled by it. The same applies to a monarchy, religious caliphate, etc. One can not have a coercive government without dissent about it's legitimacy. That is what is truly revolutionary about the Constitution is that it permits a small amount of dissent in order to effect better law, recognizing the frailties and imperfection of man's reasoning and their moral foibles, all while attempting to structure and limit such.

3. "The original meaning of the word ‘anarchy’ is ‘without a [coercive] ruler’; ‘anarchy’ does NOT mean ‘without [voluntary] rules’."

This author misinterprets the definition by adding words and mistakenly defining government as a necessarily coercive entity. If the bracketed words are left out (it's true, unadulterated meaning), it becomes correct again. This correction, however, also has the secondary effect of failing to advance the author's narrative.

I could, but you wouldn't like the answer.

Indeed!

Why the down vote? +1 Coercive force is initiatory. Retaliatory force is self defense. Those are very, very different. Though I suppose, for the thief and murderer, the threat of retaliatory force could be considered to be coercive. But only that the threat of is intended to prevent his action, not to gain anything from or take anything from him.

Edit: Spelling and clarification.

"...the opposite of anarchy (no ruler) is government (ruler); whether total or limited makes little difference...."
The word Anarchy was originated by the Greeks, and means nothing more and nothing less. Current "dictionary" definitions of Anarchy as "chaos" and etc. are horsefeathers.

This has everything to do with so much of the chattering on this post. Words have meanings, With muddied definitions, communications become impossible.

Strictly no, but the United States came close in the North in the early 1800s and though out the US in the late 1800s. Note that the closer countries came to this standard, the greater the well being of the people and vice versa. While communists and religionists constantly excuse every attempt at their ideal with the idea that was not true communism or religion and the closer they got the more mass murders and evils were inflicted upon the people nearby.

As I pointed out the broadest definition in the dictionary is nonsense. Self defense is not the coercive use of force. To suggest otherwise is to make the word redundant, like people who define god as love.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just using "coercive" literally. We already have terms like "aggression" or "initiation of force" that do the job you're trying to have "coercive" do.

ADDENDUM: In the essay all semantic ambiguity is eliminated by defining both "government" and "anarchy" FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ESSAY. For this reason, parading all manner of dictionary or alternative definitions in an apparent attempt to defeat the core arguments of the essay is meaningless nonsense, a debating parlor trick as old as the art of debating itself.

While an ambiguous definition of coercive might include retaliatory force, it is a definition that makes the word coercive meaningless. It means that if you break into my house and point a gun at me, I am using coercive force in restraining you. That is a non-definition, it means that adding the modifier "coercive" to force is redundant. That is exactly the sort of non-definition post-modernists love.

Good Spamming a favorite technique of the anarchos.

Natural Rights are a matter of logic applied to the nature of humans and human interaction.

In many conversations, when trying to explain the difference between communism, fascism, and capitalism, I see the eyes glaze over and realize that I'm talking to myself. One of the ways I overcome this is by relating them to production, which a certain type of individual understands very well, such as those engaged in almost any kind of business. So, here's my definitions for 6th graders:
Communism and Socialism is when the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Fascism is when the means of production are partly controlled by the state and partly free.
Capitalism is when the means of production are totally free and not controlled or regulated by the state. You will find that anti capitalist mentalities have difficulty coping with those definitions and the word "freedom" starts entering the conversation.

Yes, retaliatory force is coercive. But (if limited enough) it is coercion with good cause, rather than the *initiation* of force.

AUTHOR: Abraham Lincoln (1809–65)
QUOTATION: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.

The Definition of "Government according to Webster's is:
Definition of GOVERNMENT
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

Control is not necessarily "coercive."

Definition:
: using force or threats to make someone do something.

The United States Government when created was not coercive, since the "people" elected individuals to represent them in establishing the rules. Being subject tot he Federal Government was "voluntary" in that consensus was achieved by "The People" in the formation of these rules.


Anarchy:
: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws.

Government is the antithesis of Anarchy.

dhaling brought out "Natural Rights." where do we get those from?

Men can be entrusted ONLY when there is accountability for mis-deeds.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton)

It is not a cheap semantic trick - it is logic and definitions Retaliatory force is not coercive. Second, anarchy is not freedom. Anarchists build these pyramids in the sky about private enforcement agencies, etc., because they know that the biggest thug will always win in true anarchy. Once a contract or property rights can be enforced you have a government.

Rothbard is part of the Austrian Tradition. Austrian economics is an out growth of two intellectual movements, the Scottish Enlightenment and Austrian philosophical movement, which gave us Freud. Neither one of them are based on reason and reality. A fact that seems to carry through with the ararcho-capitalist advocates.

minor correction ^^^ "which an amorphous non entity" should have read "of an amorphous non-entity".