Every society is bound by certain restrictions: they have to be. Now, such "laws" might not be set in stone; actions might be discouraged merely by social pressure; they might be labeled "morés" instead of "laws," but they are still proscriptions on behavior.
I don't mean to imply that I reject society out of hand. I like living with people and though I've been tempted from time to time to give it all up and live like Jeremiah Johnson (or Thoreau), I don't think I could live that way much longer than the length of a vacation. (Then again, talk to an anarcho-primitivist and you might get a much different answer.)
I think society's (we'll call them) rules should be minimized, unbound by the monopolistic juridical structure of today's "justice" systems, and centered around the harm principle. Hopefully, in a stateless society they would be. (Still, it seems to me that workers' councils and federations are just as liable to tyranny as what we have now.)
But, regardless of the particular format of control, it's still control and control is anathema to that iconoclastic autonomy at the heart of anarchist living. Once again, a law's worth--like anything else--is only valuable to an anarchist insofar as it is tasteful and useful. When it isn't, you can either: follow it strategically because it would be disadvantageous to rebel, set it on fire and laugh with the tongues of flame, or blithely and surreptitiously sidestep it. The choice is always yours.