I understand and generally agree though I’m less prescriptivist about how language is used - the point is valid. TO your point, those would both fall under natural law because anarchy, as a concept, has competing definitions, both valid for different reasons. The philosophic idea is the anarchy we push for based on voluntary ideals; however the factual use of anarchy from a governmental perspective (libertine,etc) as lacking state control, though I am not fond of this use for the word it is a valid definition and it would also be anti-entropic. Anarchy, by both definitions, is anti-entropic because entropy would have human’s capacity to socialize rules be the guiding force within a group/society due to entropy driving homogeneity (classic race to the bottom of statism). Both, from a statist perspective, become indistinguishable as chaos to the system due to noncompliance, active or passive.