If it's more beneficial to co-operate with others then that's what most people will do. This whole thing about anarchy being chaos and survival of the fittest is a complete myth. The few that decide they want to steal and kill will find themselves outnumbered by the many and subject to being rounded up by security.
If government is, for the most part, a monopoly protection service (ie. racket) then an anarchic situation would have competitive protection services that aren't tied to the land. ie. you are free to choose your level of protection rather than the one size fits all and you are forced to pay.
It's human nature for psychopaths to kill and steal. But they are a small percentage of the population. Most people want decent lives where they look after their children, have fun with friends, etc. They don't want a situation where week after week they are thinking about who they are going to have to steal from this time, planning it out, and quite likely having to commit at least one murder in the process. I don't know about you but most people I know would find that lifestyle horrifying. No, what people do when they form communities is they start getting the market process, division of labour going for the benefit of all. Yes, there are always psychopaths that seek to benefit from this but even they don't want a complete breakdown because they know their lives would be much harder. It's much easier with an abundance of products to steal what you want. The psychos would be easier to deal with in an anarchic society, unlike the current situation where we put them in government and ask plead with them to be nice, lol.
This is why anarchism cannot occur right now; it's often believed that anarchism is the result of failed government, but this is not true; totalitarianism is the result of failed government. A people who can self-govern on a national level become anarchists; a people who become entirely dependent on the state become fascists. Our slow drift into fascism in America is a result of people becoming progressively dependent, which is the exact opposite direction we want to head if it's good progress we're seeking; we want to be free and independent, not enslaved and dependent.
For anarchism to occur, we need a world of rational actors, fit with enough intelligence and maturity to handle themselves without a state, and doubly so to prevent the sociopath from rising to power, as he will always try no matter how far along we've come as a species; the state does not enable society, society enables the state, and enables it varying on how individualistic its citizenry is. People who seek a small state are almost there, and as I'm sure you've seen, they're gradually becoming a majority; people who seek a huge state cannot trust even themselves, so it comes to no surprise that this is projected onto others.
The state will always occur in a society of irrational people, because they'll always be duped by the sociopaths into believing they cannot survive without it (in the same way we once believed God was necessary in life and the fear of not having him was too great to abandon; rational thinking disposed of this idea in a great many, and increasingly every day.) Thus, the beginnings of anarchism, a fairly new idea when compared to the state and likewise relevant to the beginning of man's focus on rational thought, will be seen as a natural shift from the state so long as rational actors remain vigilant, and continue to train others in the rational method. Though you and I can see why this is the preferable method of governance, it can often look like gibberish to others due to this effect.
Only possible way would be to clone same guy over and over, and brainwash him - so there's uniformity. Unachievable otherwise.
This observation, albeit consistent with religion and politics, remains inconsistent in atheism; nobody is brainwashed into believing atheism, and most atheists become so on their own even with a religious upbringing.
If this is true, can we not assert that atheism is the product of rational thinking? In other words, if you've never been exposed to another atheist and you can still come to the same conclusions, whilst, in comparison, the only way to become a Christian is through other Christians, then we can assert that atheism (weak atheism anyway) is the rational conclusion on the concept of religion.
Looking at this another way: I give you a logic tool. You use this tool in thoughts about religion and come to a conclusion.
What are the chances that you've reproduced Hinduism? What are the chances you've reproduced atheism?
This same line of thinking can be applied to morals and ethics; the more this tool spreads, the more uniform people are, for they always seek the best methods of interaction, not the "traditional" methods. Thus, conclusions such as "do not aggress" become very popular in people with this logic tool, while conclusions like "might is right" die gradually with nobody to preach it.
).
