Comment: I literally just wrote about this

(See in situ)

I literally just wrote about this

See the video I made, part I.

In summary though: people CAN live in anarchy, but in order to avoid chaos they still must communicate and decide upon a mostly mutual and completely voluntary set of societal rules. That's a requirement, even in anarchy, because we're rational beings and use standards to make decisions.

The need for a state arises because of the scarcity of time and space. Sometimes people will engage in violence because the situation demands an outcome before the process of 'figuring things out voluntarily' can finalize. A state is like a monopoly on law for a given territory and time period, so it removes those constraints.

The state does not have to make economic decisions, however, because even though the constraints of time and space harm the information flow in economics, no one necessarily gets shot and dies as a result. States are only required to manage physical force.

Finally, the voluntary organization of the people should be superior to the state. A voluntary forum of popular will should be so well established that it makes the state quake in its boots. In fact, such a forum, if well established, would slowly diminish the powers necessary for the state to even possess. Eventually, a society could exist in anarchy with just such a popular forum with no binding powers.