So you think impact of natural causes for harm outweigh the aggressive ones? I say "Justify this belief."

You are making a claim that aggression is somehow less impactful to societal wellbeing than natural issues. Crimes with actual victims, war, terrorism, restrictions on trading, the massive amounts of corporate defrauding of entire nations - these are all things that happen because of aggression. They have a far more debilitating effects on societies than the risks of starvation do today.

Your solution is focusing on issues that are less damaging to society, ones that actively cause less harm and can be mitigated privately with ease. To fix these things, you are proposing a state is necessary, and that state is guaranteed to commit aggression at some point to enforce its subjective value judgements on everyone.

In other words, I know your solution won't work because it doesn't care about what causes the most harm to society, and it doesn't actually have a principle to judge those actions from. It is purely subjective, and purely subjective systems do not work to improve things. Every single "Marxist socialist" state has proved this, and every mixed economy shows that it is horrifically inefficient compared with privately designed solutions.

As for your "anarchy could descend into chaos!" argument, sure its possible, but the probability of such an occurrence is far less likely than a state causing actual chaos through war and economic manipulations. This is again because of the mathematical factors I mentioned earlier, something which you seem to have completely ignored.

Regarding Ethics and Morality, you may consider it to be a "semantic distinction" but it is critical. A subjective morality cannot be objectively applied to society and be expected to work well for anyone save the one who created that standard. You must have an objective metric to measure against for ethics to work. Consent is this measure for a vast majority of people, so consent should be considered that which is ethical, and any other subjective value judgement can be considered morality based.

In addition, the means by which ethics are generated are not rooted in any specific philosophy, particularly not natural law. To make this claim is a misunderstanding of how ethics work. The fact you are not distinguishing between subjective moral judgements and ethical principles is why I am saying you are attempting to apply an ethical standard that cannot function.

If each community can decide its laws, and not have them overruled by some other authoritarian group, then its effectively a voluntary anarchistic solution in any case. The democratic confederalism you described, however, does not appear to be this. It appears to be yet another rehashing of the great american experiment, which has now shown no matter how small the government you start with, it eventually will attempt to become an empire.