I consider my perspective to be 'anarchist' because it fits the definition I stated earlier. I think the questioner was referring to the consistency of the term. It appears that I would be a different kind of 'anarchist' to most the others, including yourself, contributing on the site. Apparently I'm an 'ancap'. I searched and found
which I might post on. However, so far I haven't seen a definition of 'ancap'.
"we don't even agree on the money it seems from the crypto discussion"
I said: "Cryptocurrency is compatible with anarchism due primarily to it's de-centralized nature."
You said: "no, not compatible at all with anarchy."
We shared some ideas and agreed to disagree as I recall.
This was in response to: "I don't think "consistency" has anything to do with relating anarchically....other than not using state apparatuses (laws and money) as a way of relating."
I appreciate the benefit of pointing out potential dangers in an oversimplification and perhaps overuse of a term like 'consistent', but without any consistency at all the term 'anarchy or anarchist' would become completely meaningless.
Here again we would differ:
as you said: 'I don't think "consistency" has anything to do with relating anarchically''
(BTW [general point] - I don't quote you, or anyone, to be argumentative or 'belligerent' and I try to ensure it doesn't distort the context when I do - it's hopefully to make it easier to follow the differences in thinking)
I think it's possible to firm up a bit on what 'anarchy' is. I'm suggesting certain approaches that I believe still conform to the broad definition of 'anarchy' and yet have some quite specific principles and related actions attached. You can, and no doubt will, criticize my suggestions as much as you like although I'm grateful that you, at least, haven't descended into profanity in the process.
I see that you don't appear to like some of the underlying assumptions behind those suggestions (for e.g. a free market economy (not 'capitalist')) and that I will have to address the issues more specifically in the relevant threads.
I hope I've been able to relate my comments more specifically to yours this time ...