Punk is the unknown forever. Punk cannot be defined because then it's corralled and freedom cannot be freedom if it is corralled by definition and category. Punk happens without any preconceived notion. Otherwise what you're describing when you try to define Punk is a past construct or lifestyle, not fresh and not new. Punk is forever new, immune to age or time because it happens ever-before a thought or notion comes. Punk is freedom. No thought can touch it. Even the words you're reading right now are only a arrow pointing to Punk. Authority cannot touch punk because as soon as it's defined by someone who claims to "know", it is no longer punk but an item to be categorized. Punk is only ever known in the mystery of the present moment that happens before a thought is formed. Punk is ever-fresh and to pursue the true essence of Punk is the ultimate expression of no-authority. <3
So in other words, it's nothing.
There may not need to be a rigid definition to punk, but to say that there is no definition I think is untrue. We all know what a punk show looks and sounds like. We have a pretty good idea of which kinds of people and ideas broadly exist within these spaces.
The thing you are describing sounds more like primordial chaos. Cool post, though.
In my opinion "punk" is anyone who is anti-estblishment and lives outside the status quo
I think this gets closer to a definition, but once again, it is too ill defined to actually encompass all it's components.
I'm a little surprised to see that punk being a youth subculture centered around music seems to have fallen out of favor. Sure, it's obviously grown beyond that, and I agree that a large part is the attitude that comes along with it. But I don't think it can be divorced from the music and fashion because it neither reflects the history nor the current lived experience.