Ehrlich says anarchy is the organisation against traditional forms of organising.

Vin, I think you are wrong to say his argument is internally consistent. We have been arguing against different views. My comment on a contradiction doesn't undermine his argument, it points out a surface flaw. I read the speech in a literal frame of mind, which is why "Black is the shade of negation" stood out. I tried to be tongue-in-cheek, but I became serious when you disagreed with me. Keyboard rage. The contradictory statements pissed me off. Again, I tried to be elegant in the critique "On anarchy, irony and tits" but I wasn't clear or concise.

The Jerry example means: Apart from an idea, anarchy doesn't exist as a functional state. How do you apply Ehrlich's ideas? once you confirm your beliefs by "agreeing to disagree" (Vin's words), you belong to a party. You are anti-government, and you have a political belief. If Ehrlich was describing anarchy, it is a belief that defeats it's own purpose.

Anarchy is the absence of human order. It is characterised by absence: for instance no development, no governing body, no human relationships. It is a step below tribalism. It does not exist.

By contradicting itself, Ehrlich's speech makes no sense.

Meeks and I are arguing different points of view. Meeks isn't even arguing. If anarchists are advancing a majority rule system, I would call them socialists. Self-governing is different from no government.