Anarchism Exposed: Part 1 - Clarifying my stance and defining Anarchism

Part 2 - Debunking of larkenrose's argument

Firstly, I will make no reference to morality.

It's an unnecessary irrelevance, which encourages sophistry and word manipulation.

There can be no debate while a party can make appeals to arbitrary moral systems.

I will focus on discussions of autonomy, human interests and general human organization.

I assume that humans are individuals, with interests that may or may not coincide.

I will define human actions only by the extent of what is possible (since morality is out the window).

By Anarchism I refer to Individual Anarchism generally defined as "opposition to state or social control over the individual ".

Source

For clarification, since I attribute no moral value on actions and ideologies, I cannot depict Anarchic systems as 'bad'.

By 'exposed' I generally mean stripping away the rhetoric, and considering the implications of state-less (centralized) governance.

A caricature of the sort of Anarchism I'm referring to is represented by this quote from Benjamin R Tucker:

"if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."

Source