What do you mean when you say you're an anarchist?

Some of the writers (and presumably some of the readers) of this blog claim to be anarchists, in some sense or another. I would like to emphasize this "some sense or another," and discuss (as well as inquire into) what is meant when someone identifies his or her self as an anarchist. I'm not looking for such distinctions as those between anarcho-capitalism (or market anarchism), anarcho-socialism, and whatever other "brands" of anarchy to which one might subscribe. What I'm concerned with here are the positions one might take which are composed of one's views on the moral status of the state and the practical feasibility of a stateless society. Some views which might reasonably be considered as anarchist are the following combinations:

1. Moral but not practical anarchism

The existence of the state is prima facie immoral (because it is inherently violent/coercive). However, in practice, a stateless society is likely (or certain) to degenerate into something much worse than, say, a relatively well-functioning constitutional republic as we have in the U.S. Therefore, despite the prima facie moral opposition to the state, someone holding this view would see some (limited) justification for the state and/or would not advocate anarchy in practice. 

This view seems to be something similar to that of Randy Holcombe  (see a response by Leeson and Stringham as well as Holcombe's reply here) and, I believe, James Buchanan's. 

2. Moral and practical anarchism

The existence of the state is prima facie immoral (because it is inherently violent/coercive). In addition, a stateless society is likely to be sufficiently good that the state is not justified. Therefore, one holding this position would advocate anarchy in practice. By "sufficiently good" I mean something like "at least close to as good as, if not better than, the relatively well-functioning constitutional republic that we find in the U.S. in terms of peace, prosperity, and general human well-being." 

Leeson and Stringham (see above) and David Friedman seem to be holders of this view.

3. Merely moral anarchism

The existence of the state (any state) is simply immoral and unjustified (because it is inherently violent/coercive), regardless of what the stateless alternative would look like. One holding this view would advocate anarchy in practice.

I take Murray Rothbard (see here and here) to hold this view. While I do take him to be confident that a stateless America would be more peaceful and prosperous than it currently is (or was at the time of his writing), I take him to see this as only a bonus. In For a New Liberty he says that the consequentialist argument for libertarianism (or anarchism) is simply a nice addition to the moral argument, but is not necessary, as the moral argument is sufficient.

Some comments and questions:

First of all, I suppose there could be a fourth position that we might call "merely practical anarchism," but I find it strange and unlikely that one would hold this. I also suppose there are further distinctions and nuances that can make for variations on these views. What are they?

Regarding view #1: How different is this view from non-anarchist libertarians and classical liberals? Even further, how different is this view from anyone else who doesn't accept practical anarchism? Here's what I mean: That the state is prima facie immoral seems an obvious fact that should be accepted by anyone who is opposed to violent and coercion.  The issue for most people is that they can't imagine a peaceful and prosperous stateless society, and thus see the state is very necessary. Might we even imagine, say, a Barack Obama or a Paul Krugman admitting: "Yes, the state is at its base violence, and if it weren't necessary for peace and prosperity, then there would be no reason to keep it"? Is it possible that the only difference between, say, Buchanan and Krugman is one of degree? One of them thinks only a little government is necessary while the other thinks a whole lot is. Perhaps the distinction is one of attitude, and not belief. While each believes the the government is necessary, their attitudes toward the government differ. Is there another distinction that I'm overlooking? And should this view really be considered anarchist?

Finally, I'm curious, if you consider yourself an anarchist, what exactly do you mean?