The definition in the preface of Chrispin Sartwell’s Against the State seems surprisingly soft to me. “By anarchism I refer to the view that all forms of human association ought to be, as far as possible, voluntary.”  Wouldn’t any minarchist say the same?  Or even a social democrat?  I doubt this statement rules out neocons.

I look forward to reading more of the argument.

But it also strikes me that there is no reason why what is possibly voluntary would remain constant in all human history and in all situations.  This reminds me of the situation in Judges where there is no tax-supported offices that constitute a unified civil society.  But in times of war, while there is no ordinary conscription, towns that refused to help liberate their brothers could be attacked.  A non-voluntary state, if you will, assembled and then dis-assembled as the situation demanded.