Technically, you are correct, but it is the implications that are important. If there is "rule by no-one", then there are, by definition, no rules, because there is no-one to make any rules. If I refuse to accept that anyone has a right to impose any rules on me, I am free to do what I like, and what I want.

As with other similar words, the precise meaning has been expanded to include the implications of the meaning, which is reasonable, as it them becomes a shortcut for "the results of an anarchic system".

Consider, as a similar case, the word "democracy", which technically means the rule of the people, but has been expanded to mean the election of rulers by all of the people. It is a different thing, but it is the outworking of a practical system of democracy*

• possibly. That is a discussion for somewhere else.

Technically, you are correct, but it is the implications that are important. If there is "rule by no-one", then there are, by definition, no rules, because there is no-one to make any rules. If I refuse to accept that anyone has a right to impose any rules on me, I am free to do what I like, and what I want.

As with other similar words, the precise meaning has been expanded to include the implications of the meaning, which is reasonable, as it them becomes a shortcut for "the results of an anarchic system".

Consider, as a similar case, the word "democracy", which technically means the rule of the people, but has been expanded to mean the election of rulers by all of the people. It is a different thing, but it is the outworking of a practical system of democracy*

*^{possibly. That is a discussion for somewhere else.}