From the perspective of science, governments have all been built for the sake of excluding others from participating in decisions that affect their lives. This being the fundamental characteristic of government, when understood sociologically as a monopoly on violence, it is fair to suggest that it is the very essence or purpose of government, scientifically-inferred.
Micronationalists do not utilize this materialist notion of government, as defined inductively through sociological science and applied deductively thereafter (somewhat akin to casuistry) in realist political philosophy. Instead, micronationalists adhere to idealistic notions of government as they have been stated in idealist legal philosophy, such as the declarative notion of government, that a government need not have the essential sociological underpinnings of government, but that it merely need be declared and maintain the performance of government.
Still, it is safe to suggest that most micronationalists, while utilizing the idealist, declarative notion of government, nonetheless tend to share ends with governments scientifically-understood. The vast majority of micronations, for instance, style themselves as monarchies, empires, principalities, or dictatorships of some form or another, while others operate according to representative governance. From the start, these declarative governments want to establish a monopoly of control, whether on behalf of a small minority or a larger minority blessed by the majority. If they are ambitious, they would like to grow their subjective, declarative governments into objective, scientific ones. To this extent, the practice of declarative governments appear to preconfigure those of scientific ones.
The Prefigurative Confederation of the Provisional Autoteletic, Henocentric, and Conautarkic Ambiarchy of the Commonwealth of Apodidomia is different. We maintain anarchist ambitions with regard to governments scientifically-understood, wishing to see the end of monopolies on violence. But we nonetheless uphold idealist notions of declarative governance, indeed assembling a good government under such notions. The government of the Commonwealth of Apodidomia, that is, does not meet and does not pre-empt the definition of government, scientifically-understood. From a scientific lens, it is an anarchy, lacking a ruling class, whether a minority or voting majority. It is only in the declaration and performance of governance, and from the lens of idealist philosophy, that the Commonwealth of Apodidomia is, by definition, a government. It is, from a materialist and realist lens, an anarchy, and from an idealist and declarative lens, a government, having all of the trappings of nationhood.
This contradiction, this paradox, is at the heart of Apodidomian ambiarchy, providing some ambiguity as to the definition of Apodidomia: Is it an anarchy or a government? It is both! As such, statehood in the Commonwealth is ambiguous, making it an ambiarchy. One may fairly say that it is a government in form, but an anarchy in substance. However, others will contest that it is a government in substance, and an anarchy in form. The truth is ambiguous! As an ambiarchy, it is both!