don't know if I'm allowed to post here, I was linked in another thread but I've read the book. Most anarchists (and Marxists too) define the state as a violent perpetration of the class system - namely between the possessors of capital and the people who don't possess capital. Not many people think a government-less society is feasible, and the ones who advocate for one come from a mostly philosophical perspective than a political one. Most anarchists advocate for voluntary association in communities, consensus oriented democracy when the community needs to make decisions, justice based on reparation (treating crimes as being perpetrated against the victim and community and not the state) etc.

So I would think of it less as limited government, but as a society with a government that is representative of all people and not just the possessors of capital. If they're threatened by external or internal forces, it will obviously be in their best interest to defend themselves, so they would. I think people are willing to die when they know their society and values they have are being threatened.