in the swamps of my mind, i have asked myself, what exactly prevents me from stealing someone elses property or even to kill someone.

Let's toss in some variables here, like hunger, a loved one's illness, would you steal or even kill if you were starving? What about this scenario, would you let doctors commit your loved one, or would you kill them and flee with your loved one?

And a very boiled down reason would be,that i would have to go to jail, and since jails are unpleasant, you don't want to end up there.

Yeah, but you are asking something like Would I take on a wild predator with my bare hands, I mean what really prevents me from doing that, just out of the blue.

It means that the Fear of losing my freedom prevents me from doing these things.(not to mention its immoral as fuck to kill or steal from a mental standpoint)

No it doesn't, the fear of being CAUGHT prevents you from doing these things, there is still the incentive of getting away with it, but of course I am only arguing that someone determined, desperate or depraved would not have the dilemma of "I don't want to go to jail". Two of those characters (desperate or determined) could very hypothetically be anyone with a snap of a finger, and they would be driven by the possibility of getting away with stealing or killing.

But on the on the other side of the argument, laws provide structure in which, you and me can benefit while respecting social contracts like "don't do to others,that you wouldn't want to be done to you" kind of things.

It's not a contract, implying so is not correct. Something that is hardly correct, doesn't provide structure, people do. People choosing to honor things that aren't agreed on like the silver rule create structure, their inherent choices, they create structure. The motivation behind those choices aren't "because I don't want to go to jail" but "this is what I think is best in this situation" which is driven by instinct, like starving, or death.

For example, if you research societies without laws, how do you suppose that structure and honoring of principles such as the golden rule exist?

Laws are a system that creates structure so that everything doesn't fall it to chaos, while most of your points seem cohesive the alternative to Order is chaos.

That's a false dilemma, it's not either order or chaos. The two aren't exclusive to each other, what is chaos to the fly is order to the spider.

The fact that societies have existed for millennia before law, and outside falling into chaos provides evidence of structure in spite of lawlessness, and order in spite of lack of structured laws.

we sometimes take for granted the things we benefit from, and keen in on things that are negative, from a logical standpoint you are absolutely right,

I think you take for granted the fact that what you consider benefit is nothing short of extortion, and what we consider negative, is the absurdity of some can levy tax, some can create rules, some can enforce them, while nobody else has these rights.

but i think that in practice, we wouldn't survive 150 years if this way of thinking would become mainstream. But as i agree with most of what you say, i think its a really great unpopular opinion

Why do you think in practice people would descend into "chaos"?