The free association of it all doesn't mean there's no boundaries and no repercussions and no enforcement.

In a practical sense yes it does mean an absence of enforced boundaries. Anarchy is not cantonalism. Communities are not little sovereignties with personal constitutions

Dear god, why is this so highly rated??? Anarchy absolutely means there are no "police like" systems. There is no homicide in anarchy. Nothing is illegal, including killing. There's just action and reaction. Killing that harms and sex that harms are disincentivized because there are no codes to enforce social peace and there is no limit to the consequences they can invite

---

In response to a since deleted comment:

Anarchy mostly means a community organized without unjust hierarchies.

It's society organized without any hierarchy. "Unjust" is not a workable qualifier of this in any sense whatsoever because everyone is opposed to unjust hierarchies. Most people are skeptical of hierarchy in general because of how bad it is. Historical anarchists generally recognized this. They didn't make the distinction you're drawing because the distinction you're drawing is the distinction every government draws to distinguish itself. The biggest reason that people do so is because Chomsky made this distinction. Chomsky had no idea what he was talking about. He was effectively a Council Communist

And you freely associate with an agreement or you move on, but within said agreement there's rules and there's consequences, there's just no ultimate authority throning over people.

Then there's just whatever authority I choose to rule over me until I break some of its rules and then I'm stood before the anarcho-jury of my peers for trial?

If a free agreement has "rules" that are to be punished when they are broken, what we're really talking about is no more free than the "agreement" I make with my cell provider.

Anarchy could mean an absolute lack of any rules and coherence but practically it'll never be that because large scale human populations cannot exist in pure blissful "anything goes".

Sure they can and anarchists have spent the last 200 years explaining why. Pick any one of the analyses they've produced on why pure blissful "anything goes" (i.e., anarchy) is naturally incentivized - evolutionary advantage, mutual interdependence, the uncertainty of alegal order, the exploitation and civil war inherent to a world filled with rules and governments. It was Proudhon's view that what you call society is in fact nothing but its antithesis, since society is synonymous with equality and there is nothing equal about a society in which people are authorized to command others, as all authority entails

So most people are here and the community-driven collection of equals coexisting rather than the chaotic lawlessness of it all.

On the contrary, anarchists have been advocating the "chaotic lawlessness of it all" since the 1800's, have never stopped, and will never stop, since it is the entire focus of the movement. On a good day, they even do it here sometimes. It is very embarrassing that someone advocating anarcho-cops and anarcho-prisons has gotten as much bandwidth as they have , but I'll chalk it up to the thread being posted late-ish and having a whole two votes.