"Mutual Interest" only ensures a battle over the mutually attractive object by the mutually interested parties. A better way to avoid conflict is shared morality. Shared Christian morality is what made for a mutually agreed upon basis for our civilization (once called "Christendom", now called "the West"). Lately we have been abandoning that for a variety of untried, idealistic social experiments.
We all have noticed the increasing barbarity of the world as the West systematically abandons its Christian roots. This is entirely to be expected, since the only thing keeping one man from butchering another was the shared Christian bond of having the same Eternal Father. Without that, all we can look to is a "Mutual Interest" along the lines of Mutually Assured Destruction. That might keep equals from battering each other; it might even encourage a brutal sort of cooperation among the strong to victimize the weak. However, any mutual respect will be the kind shared by predators; any peace will be maintained only under the watchful eyes of a omnipresent security state.
Faith and Hope are Christian virtues unimagined by Anarcho-Syndicalist Eco-Warriors living on nuts and berries in the woods. Mercy is a Christian virtue unpracticed by Amazonian Lesbian Horsemen patrolling the malls and suburbs. Humility is a Christian virtue despised by Mad Max bands of roving barbarians living off terrified beach communities. Charity is a Christian virtue little more than a dim memory in the peer-to-peer NWO of inner city snitches and spies.
The only peace possible in anarchy is the peace of mutual disinterest enjoyed between fishing tribes on the seashore and hunting tribes in the woods. Neither tribe wants what the other has. If, however, one tribe gets the itch to attack the other, there will be nothing to stop them. There will be no fear of God nor government to temper their ferocity. Like animals, they will surround their prey and exterminate them with an amoral, brute efficiency.
"THERE are only two kinds of social structure conceivable: personal government and impersonal government. If my anarchic friends will not have rules, they will have rulers. Preferring personal government, with its tact and flexibility, is called Royalism. Preferring impersonal government, with its dogmas and definitions, is called Republicanism. Objecting broadmindedly both to kings and creeds is called Bosh; at least, I know no more philosophic word for it. You can be guided by the shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or you are not a nation but a nasty mess." ~G.K. Chesterton