At least your engaging. Finally. I do however find myself thoroughly unconvinced by your, and Chomsky's, claim by extension that Franco was 'doing an Anarchy' so to speak when he overthrew the Spanish Republic.

You feel that way because this is the first comment you have made that is actually engaging with the topic of discussion.

"I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism"

It is. Along with every other political theory. The real thing you have to explain is how under Chomsky's definition theocracy or fascism isn't anarchist because it questions the justification of liberal democratic authority, and seek to dismantle it because they view it as unjustified.

You are merely stating that you disagree without giving me a real reason why my extrapolation of the consequences of that definition do not follow.

Something other than what Chomsky proposes is pretty obviously what separates anarchism from other political theories.

"As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme"

You are simply not engaging with the discussion at hand. This is the description Chomsky uses, which is the actual topic of discussion:

""Primarily, [anarchism] is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical
of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of
hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending
from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks
whether those systems are justified. Their authority is not
self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification."

The justification of whatever power relation, and the criticism of other sets of power relations, is fundamental to all bodies of political theory of which I am aware. Anarchists of course disagree that "God wills it" is a good enough justification, but that simply means that there is some other set of criteria by which anarchists evaluate the justification of any given power relation.

Ergo: merely questioning weather a power relationship is justified is not a defining feature of anarchism. Everyone already does that. This presupposition leads to idiotic conclusions. A Nazi screaming "The Authority of the Zionist Occupation Government is unjustified and should be dismantled" suddenly becomes a piece of anarchist political theory.

You've barely made mention of the central question of contention: weather Chomsky's definition of Anarchism is coherent or not. Calling that playing devil's advocate is charitable to the extreme. As it stands you haven't made any real point

I do wonder why on earth you would consider Hitler enlightened in any way.

"You HAVE to have power over those that would assert themselves over others"

I mean I agree, but that's also part of why I am a Marxist and not an Anarchist.

But that's all beside the point. My quibble here isn't with Anarchism as such. Merely Chomsky's conceptualisation of it. You are doing an exedingly poor job of convincing me that Chomsky's conceptualisation is actually useful or really meaningful in any sense.

"There are lots of ways to interpret the justification of authority by the millions"

Exactly. Which is why the whole idea of defining Anarchism in terms of criticism of or opposition to "unjust hierarchies" or "unjust authority" is essentially meaningless.

Pretty much all political schools of thought have some set of power relations which they oppose. Defining Anarchism in the terms of Chomsky just means that everyone is an anarchist.

That really is such a cop-out non idea. Liberals think liberal democratic state authority is justified. Marxists think the dictatorship of the proletariat's authority is justified. Islamists believe the authority of the caliphate is justified.