ok so you're an ancap trolling. fuck off.

According to classical anarchist political theory anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Private property (as in a select few owning the means to production, not as in personal possessions) will lead to hierarchy and oppression.

Of course self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists disagree with this point. They believe a free (unregulated) market would be empowering for everybody.

Anarchy is a form of society without rulers.

• Wikipedia

An- (Greek: "without") + arkhos (Greek: "ruler")

• Oxford Languages

The literal definition in the political sense and the literal etymology are "without rulers".

And your point is bs because its against a literal definition.

Maybe a dictionary definition because dictionaries capture common understanding, which in the case of anarchism is abysmal. Good dictionaries will also list the actual meaning. But, as you said, a literal definition? That's exactly "The absence of rulers". Not the absence of order, the absence of norms, "lawlessness", that's called anomie.

And even if we here were wrong and you were right that still wouldn't matter as by your own admission we can do as we please, including using terms in ways which seem disagreeable to you. But we don't because we actually care about theory and the general intellectual integrity of things (in a material sense (in the actual meaning of material)) as without theory there's no praxis, only actionism.