You Want Anarchy? How About Ayds?

I'm a libertarian who has always found the word anarchy repugnant in relation to a free society, i.e., one without territorial monopolies on the use of force, aka the state.

Why? Because anarchy is, in a word, unmarketable.

Yes, I understand anarchy's original meaning, but look at what you get when you google the word:

 an·ar·chy
 noun
 1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
 synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
 2. absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Notice the first definition? There's a reason it's first, which is that this is what the vast majority of people think of when they hear the word:

That's right, when the people think absence of government, they think "lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil."

Which is to say that libertarians might as well be trying to bring back the Ayds lozenge ...

... in the aftermath of its infamous homonym.

Thus does the libertarian community need to rid itself of a word that long ago surrendered its original meaning to the one that prevails today, accept the fact that refusing to do so is self-defeating, and come up with a marketable alternative.

What would that alternative be? What is a marketable word for a rule of law based not on coercion but on cooperation?

I think the answer is obvious, but in the spirit of fun, I invite your suggestions.