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.
i think this is the answer due to the fact that many people are really fast at talking but they can listen to other people and always end up in issue since all they do is talk and not listen ☺☺
In response, the U.S. and its Western allies sought ways to prevent further expansion of Communist influence on the European continent. ... Events of the following year prompted American leaders to adopt a more militaristic stance toward the Soviets.
