"I challenge you to a duel!"
What drives people to engage in such mutually destructive activities like personal duels where both individuals may be killed or permanently maimed?
Human beings are social creatures and unconsciously place a high premium on social status. As if by magic, children perceive and internalize the social rules governing the adult world such that they are strongly shaped by the culture and society that they grew up in. The children absorb the social rules contribute to it with their own experiences and then pass it on unconsciously to their children.
What am I saying is that the rules of society is a cloud of accumulated wisdom. It is a brief summary of optimal and suboptimal behavior. These rules have various degrees of mutation speed. Some rules like fashion may change in the matter of months. Other rules may take generations to learn or unlearn. The axises of society take much longer to change and shifts usually take generations or more. They also have profound permanent impacts and the changes are retroactively identified as social revolutions.
One of these axises of society is the strength of family/tribe relations upon which an individual can count on unconditional support or informal speculative aid. The behavior is particularly pronounced when dealing with outsiders. Depending on the cultures, there may be multiple demarcations beyond which an individual would be considered an outsider. In many cases, doubts of morality and virtue are discarded in favor of tribal loyalty.
Classical liberalism was in may ways a departure from heavy tribal bonds. Customs of children inheriting debt from their parents was abolished. Individuals would stand before blind justice regardless of familial connections, and individuals were to be judged by their personal value and contribution to society. All in theory, since it's still impossible to abolish the family unit.
Another axises of society is the relative importance of goodwill and honor. The reactions are a warm welcome to positive goodwill, cold antagonism to negative goodwill, and indifference to neutral goodwill. The reactions are exaltation or submission to those of greater honor, mutual acknowledgment to those of equal honor, and disdain for those of lesser honor. Goodwill can be gained and lost easily, while it's disproportionately easier to lose honor than gain it. This difference in behavior means that societies with differing emphasis on goodwill and honor should produce highly divergent behavioral mechanics.
Cooperative societies generally place greater emphasis on goodwill. Cold antagonism and refusal to cooperate is much more of curse than the disdain of others. Competitive societies generally place greater emphasis on honor. Lack of honor in such a society would invite being bullied or being taken advantaged of. Ironically, in such a society, violence and conflict over lost honor is usually more prevalent than for any other kind of reason.
When examining the application of anarchy - a society without legislators or enforcers, governed by mediators whose only authority is the moral weight of their decisions - it is important to recognize that such a system would achieve its greatest success in an individualistic society based on goodwill. It is disastrous in a tribal society based on an honor system.
In light of this, I will post two quick notes:
Capitalism, the free market system, is based on cooperation at its core and places high value on individual contribution.
Honor-based tribal societies without strong central governance are quite close the definition of anarchy. While it is normal for these societies to co-exist with mutual honor, most people associate anarchy with the more violent dynamic between two tribes when they clash for honor.