I don't believe it is morally correct. I believe it is fact, moral or not. Morals are what individuals use to maintain their conscience. Laws are what are used to prevent or to correct those whose conscience fails to match the social contract (which includes shared morals against assault and murder). Nations have few morals, since they are run by committee in many ways, and nations have no laws. Thus, the basic system of "might makes right" takes over. As such, you are able to secede whenever you want, but if the nation you secede from doesn't like it, they can fight you stop you. _I_ think that our constitution implies a legal right to secession of states, but the civil war proved that such a right will not be recognized without a fight, military or otherwise.
But regarding the definition of Anarchy, if a state had in its constitution a legally explicit right to secede recognized for individuals, groups, etc, then that state would still be a government, not an anarchy. Webster is very specific in specifying the advocacy of anarchism, which it describes as lack of government. I support the right of secession, but I am not an anarchist by this definition.
But my original point is _still_ that anarchy is not possible in any area with a significant population density, since similarly to the relations between nations, men without morals will consolidate into tyrannical governments and will simply use force to subjugate or kill the anarchists.
Unfortunately, it seems that humankind is not "civilized" enough to live in anarchy around other humans.
But I am simply discussing governmental philosophy. Do not take these arguments as an endorsement of immoral or amoral governance. I am merely telling it as I see it. I apologize if I come across as harsh or heartless; I am not so bad when I'm not arguing philosophy and politics.