Since your "entity called govt" does not initiate force (violate
individual rights), then it's merely another agency in the free
IOW, you're an anarcho-libertarian. Admit it, Starchild! It's nothing
to be ashamed of--you're in excellent company.
The limited government I propose would not coercively tax people, but *would* have the power to initiate force in at least a few basic instances: Bringing people to trial and restricting weapons of mass destruction, and requiring "truth in advertising" such as accurate product descriptions. Perhaps most importantly (though mostly symbolically), this organization would be considered "the government" for a specific geographic area or group of people, and other organizations would be prohibited from calling themselves "governments" within this jurisdiction.
Such a limited government would also have a monopoly as the final court of arbitration if parties to a case could not agree on a non-government arbiter, as custodian of the "public space" and as the owner of certain other "official trappings" of government such as (in the case of the U.S.) ownership of the "brand name" "United States of America," etc. The organization's charter would prohibit it from transferring ownership of these things, though they could be contracted or licensed out temporarily. It would run elections, maintain its lands and property, and via its legislature provide a "town hall forum" for the society, similar to the U.N. General Assembly. Its officials would have a "bully pulpit" to persuade, lobby, mobilize and orand pass resolutions on behalf of their constituents. Its functions could probably be paid for (again in the case of the U.S., and probably others too) entirely through the licensing of "official" government merchandise like postage stamps and coins.
There may be a few other things to add to this list that I haven't thought of. If what I've outlined above complies with your definition of anarchy, then I accept the label of "anarcho-libertarian."
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>