The second definition covers that.

Yes, I mean the first one that you refer to in "That’s the first definition of anarchy." The disorder definition is irrelevant to this conversation.

Stirner would disagree

What makes you think that?

I recall him saying something in his works about not caring if his writings led to complete disorder and destruction, because it is irrelevant to him so long as he pleases his ego by writing.

Yeah I guess that's one interpretation of that but I would interpret that rather as pessimism and staunch authenticity while he actually did want a better world (which is what all anarchism is really about.)

I think that Stirner would say you're telling a bunch of ghost-stories :)