“Saying that one is an anarchist is so alienating to the vast majority of people …”

Oh, but I like the fact that calling yourself an “anarchist” alienates the vast majority of people.

I don’t have anything in particular against the general run of humanity. And I don’t think being off-putting is desirable in itself. But I do have a goal — undermining the material, intellectual, and cultural power of the State — which demands some big changes in the way people look at the world and at their fellow people. I think those goals are better promoting by challenging people’s preconceptions than by pandering to them.

If you’re worried about popular associations, then it seems like you’re being selective in singling out “anarchy” for its “association with mayhem” and “association with various socialist movements”. You (and Bob LeFevre) made up your own meaning for the word “Autarchy,” but it has another established historical usage, which is synonymous with “autocracy,” i.e. direct personal rule in an absolutist tyranny. In economics there is also the doctrine of “autarky,” i.e. radical protectionism. If you’re going to worry about problematic associations, then you can hardly overlook the associations that “autarchy” carries when you make the comparison.