“My point about unfalsifiability was aimed at the way you keep changing your definitions to defend your argument - every time anyone has pointed out anarchistic societies you attempt to shift what you mean. Thus any attempt at falsifying your argument is met with sophistry.”
It depends on who is reactinig to whom. I think the definition of anarchy is not clear and when I change I am changing extrinscally toward the defintion of anarchy. For the sake of argument I will, to make you happy concied that Ireland and Somalia were viable anarchies, I mean none of these anachies mentioned are Market Anarchist, yet the other anarchist examples might support mutualist or anarcho-communist arguments. Why does ancient Ireland, if an anarchy, support Market Anarchy rather than Mutualism? Also by rejecting Ireland as an anarchy I do not think I am changing the defintion, but rejecting one I do not agree to. I think if any of these anarchist systems that have been pointed to are actually anarchies then I think they support Mutualism more than Market Anarchy. Since all of the above have some sort of notion of the commons, or common property.
As to Somalia, I believe it might constitute an anarchy, yet it is not a kind of anarchy that either Market Anarchists, Mutualists or Syndicalists would support. And even if Ireland and Somalia show examples of viable anarchy it does not seem justifiable at face value to say that they prove that Market Anarchy is permissible.