What probably happen if most people did not obey the laws explain in your on words

You will be fine and/or jailed for breaking the law, if you are caught and indicted.

However, if you did not obey some moral or ethical values which did not go against any laws, then you could be seen as an irresponsible, unreliable, a cheat, a proud or some person that possesses negative characteristics and traits that netizens may despise or distant themselves from.

If you are a new citizen of a country, but originated from another country by birth, the people there may consider you as someone ‘incompatible’ and ‘alien’ and someone that has not been properly adapted or localized to accept the rules, customs, beliefs, aspirations, culture and practices of the nation of the country for himself/herself.

In any case, the direct or indirect impact on you (for not obeying rules as citizens) could be pretty negative and uncomfortable.

Explanation:

the first historical instance of china engaging in internationalism was during the han dynasty.[1] at the start of the han dynasty, the huns in the north were attacking the frontiers of han and trying to obtain riches. emperor wu of han wanted to gain an alliance with a country called dayuezhi so the two countries could join together and fight against the huns.[2] to obtain this alliance, emperor wu sent zhang qian to the west to establish economic and cultural connections.[2] history records that during the han dynasty there were four primary avenues of contact between china and europe. they included the northern land route, the central land route, the southern sea route, and the far southern sea route.[1] the most famous of these routes is the central land route, or the classical silk road, comprising a network of roads stretching from northwest china to the ports of syria and the black sea, which passed through the oasis of the turkestans and northern persia.[1] the silk road was significant for chinese emperors because it provided dominance over central asia by developing resources and provided new markets for the export of china's most valuable resources.[1]

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005