If you and I can interface “unmediated” and freely, and I decide to use that freedom to take your shit, you need a “coercive or alienating force” to correct the wrong. Controlling this force is the history of civilisation.
Of course we'd still have to come up with activities to occupy all the "guard dog" will-to-power types when they no longer had good excuse to brutalize unfortunates. My suggestion would be a new violent sport! Since physical fitness is on the wane, probably something incorporating motorized scooters?
More to the point, we didn't evolve in an environment that included police. Police were invented in the 19th century (for largely questionable purposes such as racism and anti-unionism). For hundreds of millennia before that, we survived without them. It's true that there existed various forces of "authority" over that period, but these were concerned about people taking the authority's shit. A cursory familiarity with history and archaeology convinces one that "coercive and alienating forces" rarely prioritize the interests of the general public.
Easy example of this would be Cohortes Urbanae in ancient Rome which was specifically formed because the Praetorian Guard was too corrupt even by Roman standards at the time and mobs, gangs and 'random' violence were common.
This is how fearful people fool themselves. They paint over the authoritarian excess of the past with anachronistic illusions of the present. Instead, they should realize that the unmistakable evils of authoritarians past indict those of the present, even if we tell ourselves that it's different this time.
There are just so many examples of predictable human irrationality attributable to this that it's hard to believe anyone doesn't understand it.
We keep executing our adaptations thousands of years after they cease to be useful.
That's probably socialized, but maybe theres some animal hunger underneath it.
The piece in the OP has nothing to do with the century long tradition of anarchist thought.
I've always been curious: how does anarchism reconcile your right not to be harmed with the supposed right of other individuals to do anything they please, including harm you? Do we even have a right not to be harmed? If we do, how is justice served -- can we serve it ourselves, or should it be delegated somehow? Or are these questions "out of scope" and justice is handled on a case-by-case basis that's not prescribed by anarchism?
...And then the young anarchists assemble a small group for mutual protection and justice. And then these small groups begin to share resources and find the need for policies and infrastructure...
...And then they rebel against their new society because it imposes policies on their "freedom"...
To this end, Libertarianism sometimes seems to me like a weak or pragmatic form of anarchy.
Ludwig von Mises was a minarchist, i.e., he advocated for the smallest state necessary. His student Murray Rothbard referred to himself as an anarchist or an anarchocapitalist.
Of course, Rothbardians and Marxists mean entirely different concepts when they use the term anarchist.