Comment: I've looked up the definition of anarchy and...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: But there you go again. This (see in situ)

I've looked up the definition of anarchy and...

my description comports with the prevalent definition. In an anarchical environment, there is no agreed upon societal structure, i.e., morals, customs, traditions and laws. It's all subjective, so each individual decides for themself what is right or wrong, proper or improper, etc.

As for the prevalent definition of free markets, anarchists say they're free market, monopolies and cartels say they're free market, capitalists say they're free market, libertarians say they're free market, Constitutionalists say they're free market, and scholars disagree about the definition of free markets, so which is the prevalent definition?

At least my definition of a free market is rational and consistent, which is that free markets are a figment of the imagination, because even in the absence of all agreed upon rules, morals, customs and traditions, a.k.a. anarchy, the strong will dominate the weak and that is a form of regulation. And the existence of regulation precludes the existence of a free market. Professional hair splitters can perpetually talk in circles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

You're assuming I'm frustrated but most of the people commenting want to have a legitimate discussion about free markets and rights. I enjoy that in spite of the disagreements. Hearing and discussing different ideas enriches ones life. I even enjoy wrangling with professional hair splitters, in spite of their inability to have a rational, intellectually honest dialogue. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)