It's easy to think of anarchy as a utopian ideal, even if anarchists don't view the state of anarchy as perfection, rather than preferable to rulers. That's because reaching a state of sustainable anarchy is an unachievable goal, at least in our lifetimes.
When More coined the term utopia, he took it from bits of Greek. It, when broken down into its parts, means "no place". As in, imaginary and therefore unreachable. It's why utopian literature almost always takes place on islands protected from the real world.
"Less rules", "less rulers", etc. are achievable goals, even if they're extremely difficult to realize and don't tend to last long without a lot of effort. "More rules" is achievable and easy, as it's the natural current of a system that ratchets. "No rulers" is damn near impossible and "absolute rule" ain't quite sustainable either. The state of anarchy never lasts long because something inevitably and quickly fills that power vacuum, and total totalitarianism eventually invites revolution of one form or another.