I agree, and to that point I have not seen any inconsistencies in the way you approach individual liberty or the application of non-aggression.
Admittedly I haven't seen a lot of your writing, but the little I have is clear, well defined in concept and context.
The longer I am here the more I appreciate the term 'individual liberty'. Do you see individual sovereignty as inherent in the term or is it in a narrow sense?
Yes, absolutely. I have no problem in coalition building either and focusing on the "an" of anarchy meaning without a ruler. The other belief systems of anarchism still need to be voluntary though, or they go against the entire principle of no rulers. A tyrannical majority is no better ruler than an individual tyrant. I have no need or desire for a ruler and reject them all no matter what reason is given.
I in general oppose creating social constructs, and more so lending/giving authority to social constructs.
In a sense I can see a loose coalition of individualist that have aligned interests, and could see how a formation could occur without lending any individual sovereignty to a formal group or faction.
I call that formation a 'individual republic' as all individual sovereignty remains with each individual.
Anarchy itself has been pulled so far left, that unless there is a distinction, it is assumed that a anarchist desires immersion into a social construct and defaults all authority to the will of the social.