Why Should We Describe Ourselves as "Anarchists"?

I mean this from a purely practical standpoint.

First of all, the "real" anarchists hate when we use the term, and often use this as a red-herring to distract from any real substantive debate. Who really cares? It's just a word. Is it really worth it? Seriously. If we didn't call ourselves anarchists, it would remove at least that one irrational defense mechanism from them. And then perhaps we could convince other anti-state people to see the merits of our philosophy, rather than watch them hopelessly struggle with basic semantics.

More importantly, by calling ourselves something other than "anarchists" we would be free from all the usual stigma from the start. Consider the average statist, will he be more open to the ideas of someone who calls himself an "anarchist" or a "voluntarist"? The word anarchy will scare them, activate the emotional sectors in their brains, and prevent them from actually rationally thinking about what you have to say. We all encounter this time and time again; an argument is put forward for the abolition of the state, and all we receive in return is not a well-crafted philosophical rebuttal from first principles, but excuses made up on the spot. In contrast, most people generally reject the idea of force (at least in their personal lives) and "voluntary" sounds like a nice, soft, comfy word. Maybe, as you explain further, they will get that you want to get rid of the state, and the word "anarchy" will pop into their brain, but at least they have listened to and rationally considered what you had to say. You caught their minds while they were at least still open to your ideas. Surely this is better than the alternative. I feel, though I admit only anecdotally, that people will be more open to our ideas if it is described in another way.

There are plenty of other words that are just as descriptive, perhaps more than "anarchy", of our philosophy. I think I would prefer voluntarism/voluntaryism. I really feel like we should abandon the term, and it was a mistake to ever associate ourselves with it. It's a shame that people are so mentally sick that we have to actually consider this, but that's another topic...

Edit: I'm seeing many responses that say, in the end your listener will "figure out" that you're talking about anarchy, and may feel deceived. But before this point, hasn't his mind at least been open and receptive to your ideas? The emotional fire alarms have not gone off until that point. Do you guys think it's worth it to have that window of opportunity, or is it pointless in the end?