It depends. The true definition, with is roughly law without force, then it wouldn't be too bad. Sounds like it would just be a non corrupt world. However, modern day groups like ANTIFA, it would suck. Things have been blown out of proportion honestly to the point where anarchy, or "anti-fascism", almost looks like fascism.
I think you confuse anarchy with a version of the so called Hobbesian nightmare. Anarchy simply means "no ruler". It does not mean "no rules".
......Many anarchists, like Anselme Bellegarrigue, have complained that "vulgar error has taken 'anarchy' to be synonymous with civil war Under anarchy, creation (natural law purists would say discovery) and enforcement of the rules or social norms are decentralised rather than monopolised by a single institution currently called "government" or "the state". Anarchy means that no institution is exempt from the rules.
<h3>The Loyalists, or "Tories" were American colonists who stayed loyal to Great Britain during the American Revolution. It is estimated that up to 20% of the colonial population - almost 500,000, people- were on the Loyalist side of the conflict.</h3>
