What is this definition based on? Per this definition, anarchy has nothing to do with governments, as governments only "steward" populations towards whatever means, they do not "own" their populations. There is nothing preventing someone from acting on their own means to flee such jurisdictions, for better or worse. You are free to ignore the rules set by the steward governments, but you also accept the consequences of doing such, just as a kid is free to ignore their parents, and accepts the consequences of doing such. So essentially, per this definition, yeah everyone lives in anarchy, so what? We also technically live in communism. Because I control my means of production, I am a worker and I can control what I want to produce. Myself and my community are not able to produce enough to realistically compete with the living conditions of the societal structure we live in, nor could we create a defense at scale to protect our community from said society if we did. Sure we could share some things among a community, as long as we still participated in the state we live in. Also, im not pro communism, I just think people have a misconception of what it looks like due to claims of communism by states abusing their workers. We've never seen real communism, as it is effectively impossible at large scare. So I guess governments could claim to be pro anarchy/(individual freedom) or pro communism, but both are oxymoron as they both exist seperate from the state. So yeah, same thing.