Anarchy's fate is to succumb to coercion

Anarchy is not a stable state.
Neither is life.
Why is Anarchy not stable?
Because it enables the rise of coercive powers, unlike coercive powers which maintain themselves.
Think of warlords, crime syndicates, etc.
What can resist them under anarchy?
Organization of people, which is a foundation of authority.
In a big enough organization, if there is no authority, cooperation and even communication between its parts becomes less efficient and less maintainable.
So the better an attempt of an anarchic society to resist coercion, the more it accepts authority, which contradicts anarchy.
It can be argued that acceptance of such hierarchic authority can be done out of consent, or consensus, and hence even such an organization may be considered anarchic, but different people have different tendencies to contribute, to cooperate and to obey, which leads to conflicts within such consensual/voluntary organizations.
There are no laws in anarchy, so how and according to what such conflicts will be resolved?
According to consent?
If there was consent then there would have been no conflict.
Can a conflict be solved without consent and without coercion?
If your answer is yes, comment how.
The conclusion is that coercion is bound to occur, and the better questions that should be asked is how to optimize it and how to decide about its form.
Back to the comparison with life.
Life leads to death, and anarchy leads to coercion.
Life is not a stable state either, but it should be maintained, so why not try to maintain anarchy?
Because due to its less coercive nature, an anarchic society may not be as able to become as efficient as a coercive society, and when they clash, the coercive society will tend to have more resources in its disposal.
Can an anarchic society realistically have a military industrial complex and armed forces like modern or even ancient super powers?
Hence the reason why an anarchy will be vanquished by coercive forces either from within or from outside.
Life as opposed to anarchy, finds ways to utilize its surroundings to its own benefits, and vanquishes inanimate into animate.
An organized society is stronger than an unorganized society, to maintain organization and order, rules should be adhered to and enforced, and people should decide about the rules and enforce them.
Anarchic organized society has a bigger tendency to dissolve, and if you apply the game of life/evolution/game theory to societies, you will see why anarchic societies are extinct and will become extinct once they emerge.
Anarchy does not even prevail in the time scales that life does.
For one I can cite history, but I gave causal explanations.

Listen to Yuri Bezmenov.
He explained demoralization and destabilization.
He did not talk about anarchy and liberty, but his explanation applies for them too.
One government secretly promotes anarchy and liberty among the peoples of a rival government.
This is demoralization like he talked about.
Destabilization is when this ideology turns into disruptive actions, either peaceful or violent.
Once demoralized/destabilized, one state's people offer less of a threat/resistance to a rival state.
I do believe that one of the worst tyrants in history funds liberty against a much freer, far less corrupt and evil government that is considered the leading superpower of today.
It is ironic and cynical and typical for a psychopathic dictator.