Flippanarchy

The other day, someone asserted to me that the definition of anarchism must rest on Plato's conception of anarchy with no rules or government whatsoever, where everyone is only out for themselves. And that anarchism must necessarily also be an umbrella term which covers not only the aforementioned, but also "shitty takes" like anarcho-capitalism (US libertarianism) as well as the "modern" anarchism we discuss in spaces like this.

I didn't really have the wherewithal to address this other than voice my vehement disagreement. It just felt... prescriptive in a very weird way, at best, and at worst, a bad-faith justification to tie the concept of anarchism as we understand it to its most unfortunate "iterations".

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this. Is there merit to such an argument? Was I just getting trolled?

Edited before even posting. Actually, can someone just point me in the direction of articles/Wikipedia entries that answer the questions below?

Genuinely curious, and if this is not the right place for these questions the mods can remove it…

I got to thinking about regulations and laws that keep greedy people from hurting others. Within anarchism, what is the acceptable limit of centralized authority when it comes to regulatory agencies and enforcing rule of law? Is each community beholden to itself alone? What about civic infrastructure, how is it maintained, and who maintains it? Regulations are written in blood, and humans are really good at generational forgetfulness (vaccines, anyone?). Since some humans will also do anything to advance their own power and influence, how are bad actors restricted? What happens when tribalism causes conflict between communities? How are community standards established and maintained? Who enforces those standards?