Okay what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Anarchy by my definition, and by the definition of 99.9% of the rest of the world, means without government, without law, without rules. Even in the mythical utopian society where people live blissful life free of any authority or rules, anarchy still means without any enforceable law or rules.
A government/structure/pecking order or whatever within a family, a small clan, a small town, or whatever is nevertheless government. It is not anarchy.
TASB seems to want to redefine anarchy to mean without central government in a nation. That is not what anarchy is.
Anarchy is a greek word that literally translates as "no ruler". As oppsed to monarchy.
The problem here is that You're trying to equate any social system people create with government. If that were the case, then tribe and clan, would by synonymous with government. They are not, and for good reason.
Yes, statists pound away on anarchic systems as lawless (and why wouldn't they. it's their passion, their whole world to believe that a leader and a formal authority structure is the only means by which society can exist), chaos, destruction, disorder, etc..
But that's not really the case from the perspective of anarchists. Who, like any other philosophy, have branches of thought and differing opinions about what the removal of a formal government will mean.
On a technicality, it is even argued that Somalia is NOT anarchy (now, before you jerk your knee, thats not an argument Im making here), but literally a center of chaos. Due mainly to interventionsit policies of early 1900 western imperialism. There is a good debate in that. Though from the perspective of an observational anarchic system, somalia does, in fact, fit the description of no formal government.
And I've already pointed out that somalia has laws...religious, customary and common. So I guess if wwe're talking that anarchy has no laws, then Somalia doesn't qualify by your own standards. So the argument is completely moot here.
