Many call anarchy a state of "no rulers." (Un)fortunately, this is (im)possible. Do you see what I did there? The prior statement was quantum think. It can get read meaningfully in four different ways. As for the fifth meaning, it's the realization that all are meaningless while having great potential. Listen, and I'll speak to the five accordingly.
(01.) Fortunately, this is possible.
(02.) Unfortunately, this is possible.
(03.) Fortunately, this is impossible.
(04.) Unfortunately, this is impossible.
(05.) The above are both meaningless and full of potential.
Number one is fortunate. I say this because coercive taxation will not exist, and this means you will not get forced to fund wars of aggression or murder.
Number two is unfortunate because human nature is not exclusively good. Thus, if there are no rulers, nobody will oppose the violent action of violent actors.
Number three is fortunate. I say this because acts of violence will get discouraged forcefully by the state.
Number four is unfortunate because the state always tends to overstep.
Fifth, but not least, the comprehension of all four simultaneously requires that one take a step outside of Aristotelian logic where things are either (a) or not (a). In this place, you can see a world chock-full of meaninglessness or one brimming with potential potentialities. I wholeheartedly recommend doing both regularly and accordingly. Just like the seasons, there is a time for both belief and nihilism.
The human condition includes not only humankind's good traits but also its bad traits. Once that realization is had that violence can and will happen, it sort of breaks "pure anarchy." Suddenly, out of the blue, a ruler manifests. Violence, installation of fear, and the use of force can cause people to fall in line with and eventually do the bidding of said rulers.
The good news is that decentralized pockets of anarchy-like people and groups can, do, and shall continue to exist. However, whenever violence breaks an anarchy-like society, then countering said violence is necessary for its survival. That's where you get into dicey territory.
Should countering the said violence be mandatory or voluntary? And what if there are not enough volunteers? What if there are so few volunteers to defend the anarchy-like society that its very existence gets threatened? Is that an excuse to make counter-violence a mandatory requirement of the Anarchy state?
Do you see what happened in the above paragraph? We are teetering between a state of Anarchy and Anarchy, the state. It doesn't take a whole lot to break all of the things and stuff. Violence will always happen, and the state of humans being a collective will often result in fictional entities, much like the nation-state.
When one understands the unfortunate fact that violence is part of human nature, an anarchy-like society moves from no rulers to when and how to deal with said rulers. It is this line of thinking which brought forth an epiphany I had one day. "Perhaps anarchy already exists, and government is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime."
Both can and will continue to exist like the yin and the yang. Rights and wrongs will happen both within the state and in anarchy-like societies. How we choose to ebb and flow with it is part of the great dance.