Some interesting points. I'll start with anarchy. For me it is a matter of principle, and hard cold facts. In truth each individual has ultimate authority at their sole option to act regarding a given matter. This is true despite oppression or coercion bearing on them, as we can observe myriad examples from history of individuals not abandoning their authority to effect their actions even in the most dire oppressive circumstances. It is simply the reality that individuals rule themselves, which is the definition of anarchy.

The second reason, that of principle, is that such government as exists should acknowledge this reality and not oppress or coerce individuals. Yet we note that power is always exerted to coerce individuals. I do not ignore this, I simply abhor it. This power to coerce is borne of might, not right, and there is a qualifier that grows ever more applicable to the conundrum: technology.

Since the dawn of man, technology starting perhaps with fire, or pointy sticks, has increased the power of individuals to resist coercion by groups/institutions. Every increase in technological ability has increased this power differential between individuals and groups, although it has always (insofar as historically revealed) not exceeded a tipping point beyond which groups and institutions become unable to project force.

What is true is that as technology has increased, increasing power has been necessary to effect coercion, and that ability to increase institutional power does not scale. It cannot permanently preclude technology increasing to the point that individuals can prevent the threat of oppressive violence from coercing their compliance. It may yet be inconceivable how such technology can effect such individual power (although I don't agree that is so, many do), but the nature of power and technology seem to ensure that there is such a point.

I see nascent technological progress transcending historical paradigms, and further, concatenating practically exponential paradigmatic transcendence to increase individual power orders of magnitude in a mere instant of historical time. 3D printing, CRISPR, aquaponics, mesh networks, cryptopcurrency, more, and still more different advances in addition to these grant me glimpses of novel abilities that render force projection meaningless.

Hypothetically, if an individual could print a nuclear arsenal at home, no state actor could threaten such force unilaterally. However, using nukes against an individual member of the national citizenry is utterly nonsensical, and no state could survive by such threats. So there is a threshold beyond which institutional power cannot be projected via technological advance, and it seems to be at the point of armed gangs of thugs.

It is far more trivial to envision technologies that can prove immune to an armed gang, say a police force, without considering nuclear holocaust, such as microwave beams, or similar EMF fields that can deny such gangs access to a field of combat where they can exert coercion.

So, I see that anarchy is the actual state of humanity, that nothing but mind control can change that, and technology seems to be at the point where institutional power will no longer enable coercion very soon.

As to manufacturing, again, the industrial paradigm is swiftly becoming obsolete. When we can print hot dogs, walls, pants, and any other product we need from resources freely extractable from the environment at our sole option via 3D printing (all of which are goods which are either presently possible, or being developed) then hoards of capital requisite to funding industrial production will no longer be necessary, and non-point source/individual provision of goods can effectively meet societal needs.

It's just coming, whether we like it or not, and since it is the laws of physics that determine what technology is possible, institutional controls like laws cannot long prevent technology from eventuating. Curious people will eventually devise whatever can be, and cats will come out of bags for once and for all.

As to your first concern, that the state may not need people for production anymore and can simply murder all those annoying citizens at will, again, there are thresholds where destructive coercion begins to harm the overlords and decreases their quality of life. Pol Pot was willing to ravage Cambodia we are told, despite the horrible consequences to Cambodia's economy, and his personal deprivation of ability to profit therefrom. Macron is not so sanguine, and apparently the line is drawn at 100 eyes in three months. Presently we are necessary for industrial production, and as automation grows to replace us, it is individuals that will most benefit from producing goods, not the state, or corporations.

As our necessity decreases, our vulnerability to coercion decreases more quickly, and our power to resist increases.

These are the facts regarding these issues I observe, whether I like them or not. Fortunately I find them to be extremely desirable, and am glad to see this future coming.

Thanks!