> Any political language is incredibly propagandized and you always have to balance the challenges of creating different words or redefinition from the popular usage

>The fact is nothing can be said in politics or philosophy without either creating local definition within your work or assuming your audience shares your personal language

That’s fair. While I do disagree on your first point, that may also be a difference in our personal language, and how we define value. If nothing else, I suppose it did at least lead to this discourse.

When your terminology is so unwavering in its definition, when your ideology is supposedly so absolute, just a single caveat or exception shows it’s fallacy and conceptual failure. If it is a universal truth, then there shouldn’t be any exceptions to the rule. If there are, then your stance isn’t unassailable, and you need to re-examine why that is. If certain people needed to be dominated EVEN in an anarchist society, then how can domination be cast off? Don’t they prove that domination and control is NECESSARY for society to function in their very first paragraph?

And I am not a stickler on language. It’s a living organism, it evolves and grows. But if everyone understands the word ‘horse’ to mean a certain animal, why waste so much of an argument asserting that ‘true’ horses are actually deer? It just further obfuscates the topic and point you’re trying to make. Language should be clear and concise. It’s purpose is to convey meaning. Even after reading their points, I still vehemently disagree that ‘anarchy’ is the term they’re looking for, regardless of the strength of their essay or if their ideology is even attainable.

This essay is so egregious, I don’t even have the words. In the first paragraph, they define anarchy as casting off ‘domination’. Then literally states ‘anarchy’ can only work if certain groups are dominated. If murderers or rapists aren’t restrained, the system doesn’t work…so they admit complete anarchy doesn’t work?!

In an additional caveat, the very next sentence also states those who have no self-control, like drunkards or sleep-walkers, must also be dominated, for they ‘lack control over themselves’. But then in their contrived ‘Seven Dominants’, Ego is one of the systems of control.

Well guess what. In their inclusion of Freudian psychology, casting off our ego would leave us with our Id. The unconscious mind. The very state they would dominate because we can’t fundamentally be trusted to make decisions for we wouldn’t truly have ‘control’ over our actions. Casting off the most essential ‘Dominant’ would lead to a necessitation for dominance.

They also use the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy so many times it’s comedic. ‘Genuine’ authoritarians. ‘Actual’ libertarians. ‘True’ Anarchists. They forego entire movements and ideologies if it doesn’t meet their own self-crafted definitions.

Which of course make up 90% of the essay, where tackling the very definitions of the word anarchy seems to be the purpose of this author. Convincing us their interpretation and word choice doesn’t actual contradict the very term itself. They would have an easier time (and maybe an actual argument) simply making up and defining a new term then convincing the masses of the entire world that the word as we know and understand it is ‘wrong’.

In their closing statement, they even ask who of us would choose order, or to enforce laws when with friends. They then immediately, freely and self-admittedly confess, yes some would. But then in the very next sentence assert all of us would not.

In addition to the crass verbiage and laughably off examples used in the essay, this was just simply, not a pleasant read. Striving for an utopian system where people can live without fetters is something we should of course strive for. But the sole purpose of this essay seems to be the reclamation of the term anarchy. And for what reason, I truly do not know.

> That's the Durango and Silverton. They're a slow-moving tourist train

Literally right above the comment you just made. C’mon man

>Despite this, he was largely unsupported by many politicians, scholars, and aristocrats because he was not the first-born son and he was born from a concubine.

>Gwanghae had a young half-brother born from a legitimate queen.

I thought the courtly intrigue of the Kingdom series was completely fictionalized. That’s shocking to me that the series’ plot had actual precedent in Korean history. Had never even heard of the Jurchen either before watching. Makes me appreciate it that much more! Thank you for your work. I really enjoyed it!