More or less, yeah. And at that level you’re left with ancap or agorist, if not pure anarchist - any of which takes more marshaling of personal responsibility than most would prefer, instead opting for society carrying them. Entropy is a bitch.
Anarchy is disentropic, both voluntaristic anarchy and violent anarchy.
Just my perspective, but I'm of the position that if its not based in natural law and objective morality, its not anarchy. Its something else, libertine, nihilism, or satanism if ya really wanna get down to it.
I understand and generally agree though I’m less prescriptivist about how language is used - the point is valid. TO your point, those would both fall under natural law because anarchy, as a concept, has competing definitions, both valid for different reasons. The philosophic idea is the anarchy we push for based on voluntary ideals; however the factual use of anarchy from a governmental perspective (libertine,etc) as lacking state control, though I am not fond of this use for the word it is a valid definition and it would also be anti-entropic. Anarchy, by both definitions, is anti-entropic because entropy would have human’s capacity to socialize rules be the guiding force within a group/society due to entropy driving homogeneity (classic race to the bottom of statism). Both, from a statist perspective, become indistinguishable as chaos to the system due to noncompliance, active or passive.
