I'm extremely confused as to what you mean by that. You used the word "force", yes, but in the context of a ruler. You don't need to be a ruler to use force. No where in that definition, nor in the accepted definition, of anarchism is "non-violent" a part of the definition. Therefore, it is perfectly valid to say "no true anarchist is violent" falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Anarchy is opposed to violence because it is a
form of domination. Not because domination is necessarily violent.
We've been over this before: By using violence one attempts to assert their will or desires over the rights of another--whether it's to control the victim's actions or simply to inflict pain or injury. Thus, as a logical consequence, Anarchy is opposed to violence.
http://www.highexistence.com/george-orwell-on-the-7-ways-politicians-abuse-language-to-deceive-you-and-how-to-make-it-stop/ nifty read
That it is. Interesting to see the linguistic tricks the author uses while discussing linguistic tricks. Sort of a "spot the example" kind of thing. Will have to finish reading it tomorrow, when I'm less tired.
Education always matters, regardless of how your political system functions.
Yep.
Well, I just got someone to reverse their previously stated position--on the internet. Do I win a prize?
"Actual history?"
As opposed to well documented facts? 
Nope.
Documentation is not the same as facts.
Just because someone writes a lie down 5 billion times does not make it true.
The Liberty Valance Principle is great for media, bad for history.
So yes, actual history, the study of events in context - top down, bottom up, sideways, inside out, and more - rather than the study of some revisionist inversion (although knowing the attempted revisionist inversions is critical as well).
The problem with learning from history is learning the lessons it makes available, not the lessons you want to support your ideology.
If all you look for is examples of people getting things wrong, then you will certainly find them. You will also most certainly get an absolutely wrong conclusion.
You're throwing around a lot of buzzwords here, but not making much of an argument.
Yes, documentation is different from actual history. That's why people study this stuff to determine as best we can what actually transpired. Technically, we can't be 100% certain this isn't all some mad dream or a matrix simulation--but under the circumstances we have to do the best we can with the evidence we have.
According to that evidence, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves while penning the words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Again, according to the best evidence we have, he wrote this while depriving
some men of those very same rights he held to be "self-evident."
Do you deny that this is "actual history?"
If so, on what basis?
But tell you what, apply that to oh say . . . the history of Anarchism. If we just look for incidents of violent Anarchists we can find more than enough to fill several tomes. Yet you insist they were not "true" Anarchists, or acting in accordance with "proper" Anarchist principles and theory.
Does that mean we get to dismiss Anarchism the same way you dismiss American Republicanism?
You sure you don't want to reconsider that?
We can certainly find incidents of people either calling themselves anarchists or being
called anarchists participating in violence--particularly since politicians and newspapers are quick to slap that label on anyone who commits violent acts against the government--but that is not the same as finding actual incidents of violent Anarchists. You can also find plenty of examples of people referring to tomatoes as a "vegetable," but common misconception doesn't change the fact that tomatoes are a fruit.
"Anarchist" means "someone who follows the philosophy of Anarchism", not "anyone who's ever been called that before." If that was how labels worked, I could call someone a brainless wanker and they'd have no grounds to refute it.
And obviously, you can dismiss anarchism if you choose. Nothing I can say from behind my keyboard has any bearing on your ability to do so, and I suspect you already have. Most people are taught to dismiss anarchy from an early age by those same talking heads that wrongly treat "anarchy" as being a synonym for "violent disorder."
However, I don't recall dismissing the philosophy espoused by the founding fathers in documents such as the Declaration of Independence. In fact I expressed my admiration for those words and the ideals they represent, along with my astonishment at the hypocrisy of the men who wrote them.
