i think some definitions are required to even think critically about this question. how do you define "laws"? what about "enforcement"? if a "law" can be freely broken, why would you call it a law? are you in fact talking about something more along the lines of principles, or (shared) personal ethics?
to me, anything that cannot be enforced is not a law. and to have enforcement of laws is to codify authority, and hence stray directly from anything anarchistic in my mind. so, without enforcement, what would make something a law?
having elected bodies to define laws (even unenforced ones - again, a contradiction to me) is to delegate power; how can that be anarchistic?
"So, what if a government passed a law making it illegal for anyone to use force or threat thereof other than for self-defense?"
one question: do you honestly see anything anarchistic about anything in there? even if you accepted one common definition of "self-defense" (a hugely subjective concept by any measure), you still are talking about government, laws, and illegality. do you seriously see any of that as even remotely anarchistic?
syrphant, at the very least, i think that you're being hampered by the words you're choosing, certainly as they mean anything to me. i definitely agree with F@, that laws without enforcement are not laws. enforcement/coercion is the only thing that makes the word law mean anything stronger than agreement... and it's the emotional force of the word law(-which-comes-with-enforcement) that i imagine makes you want to use the word. in an anarchic situation, we would have social mores and relationships to gauge our behavior against. if that feels weaker to you, then that is exactly the point?
if nothing else, you would probably like emile armand (if you haven't got that thinker in your belt already. i can't remember...)