Oh look, it’s my first post from three years ago. I think I made some interesting points and I still stand behind the main thrust about definitions, but I no longer agree with every last detail and nuance of the OP.
Especially: Rather than anti-monopolism, my current stance is that humans evolved for small tribal living and now the tribes (states) are way too large, resulting in all the problems of the modern superstate. Just like we aren’t adapted to handle the modern selection of readily available junk food, we aren’t adapted to have useful intuitions about how large of a tribal authority to respect or what behaviors to condone and condemn (price gouging, etc.). The state is simply an artifact of evolutionary maladaptation.
Learning Austrian economics seems to be the best way to readjust people’s intuitions so that they become extremely skeptical of those aspiring to become “tribal elders” of large populations (like, more than a few hundred people), and become a lot more accepting of intuitively anti-social economic activities (like price gouging during a disaster).
I happen to think that populations educated in economics would tend to support very strong property rights and a tremendous increase in personal liberty, but I make no claims of being an absolute propertarian or even an absolute libertarian or voluntarist (in terms of total adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle). Rather, I think the more natural order that would come about in the absence of massive states would include common law (customary law) conventions that are generally libertarian, voluntarist, or “ancap-like” without conforming perfectly to any theoretical construct.