Comment: "No, I just didn't find it truthful."

I am always truthful. So never make that assumption. There may be a detail which isn't being made clear enough for you to understand the distinctions, but they are present.

In this case, I very clearly stated why you cannot leave the jurisdiction.

Now, let me explain an additional finer point. In the case of a state, it is assumed that all the people own all of everything. It is communal in nature. This is illustrated by property tax and the inability to leave the jurisdiction.

If, in anarchism, I wanted to leave the jurisdiction and not have anyone be responsible but myself, for instance to save money. I should be able to buy land, own it, and set my own laws/rules, and start my own community, or be a community of one.

You cannot buy land from the state. They will always own it and claim jurisdiction over you. You can only "escape" by moving into another jurisdiction, not by starting your own, hence, no real choice in the matter. No competition. A tightly controlled semi-monopoly, even if there was no federal government, the states may act in collusion to pass all the same rules making it irrelevant to switch (car insurance is an excellent example of this scenario).