Anarchism is simply to ability for people to freely associate, and meet daily needs, with out influence from another.

People influence others by there merely being exposed to their presence. You seem to be interested in avoiding a particular type of influence... but you then clarify:

Rather, the individual should be free of oppressive influence which may hinder the individual from meeting needs freely.

Now you have made a claim: that the individual should be free of oppressive influence. You might have been trying to support your claim here:

It is biological advantageous to live in a way that meets the need of a community to insure healthy genetic distribution.

... but there is a problem. I do like the idea of voluntaryism (a type of anarchism in which interactions among people are voluntary), but you are making an additional claim that this is the way the universe should be. Most people on any anarchy/voluntaryism forum will just agree with you because they like the conclusion. This is called belief bias. I say that you are making an empirical claim about the universe that you have actually discovered something in the universe that an objective observer can measure to discover they way things should be. I'm skeptical that such a discovery is possible.

Again, most people in this forum will probably agree with you, but it is not because you have discovered something that a statist will examine and then reach the same conclusion as you.

I argue a negative case: There is a lack of objective evidence to indicate that one person is morally subordinate to the other in such a way that one person has a legitimate basis for forcing the other person what to do against that person's will. To appreciate that claim, one has to first understand and accept some principle of science. Not easy.

As for the biological advantage of getting along... I would like to live in a place where people get along without forcing peaceful people to do things against their will. I avoid making the positive claim that I have discovered a fact about the universe that says that humans are compelled to ensure some kind of population growth or health or other such thing (I prefer to have a lot fewer than a billion people on the planet).

I argue that it is just your subjective preference to prefer one goal for the human race versus another... and furthermore, once you get into subjective perception, you have lost your rational basis to oppose the utilitarian views of progressives (there is a lack of evidence to indicate that the common good can be objectively measured against the loss of liberty, so there is a lack of evidence to support the claim that utility or common good is a legitimate basis for justifying the state).

I'm suspect that you find what I say to be foreign and somewhat confusing.