These economies will be crushed by bigger ones every time. You can have local small governments too. Small constitutional monarchies everywhere. Much more feasible than anarchism, which will get nothing done because the culture will never coordinate or agree on any large projects. You cannot think that far in the future with a society so fragmented.
Discussion
I find it rather the opposite. You are freer to think longer term when there is no larger society to worry about.
Constitutional monarchism is an interesting thought, but, I still reject it for the same reasons I reject all human government.
I imagine a word where we have about as many monarchies as we have counties in the USA. But globally. Tax would be more voluntary with such small geographic landscapes. Freedom of movement exists. People will organize naturally. Those monarchies that opress their people will fall in short order.
Why bother having a monarchy at all, then?
A shared moral compass of your people, shared goals.
That's close enough to anarchy that I don't see any point in making a distinction. Anarchy would just be that, but on an even smaller scale. It doesn't work without property, and if you can own a few miles and pass it on to your kids, then you might as well invent some titles and call it a monarchy.
Not counties. Smaller. Households and companies would in "anarchy" be their own fully soverign monarchies.
Wear a sweater, chicken neck
Why do you say anarchy is fragmented? I don't know if it has been tried but maybe because we didn't have the technology until now.
Anarchy lacks the ability to organize because of the lack of central authority.
You can have authority in anarchy (doesn't have to be central). The only difference is it's not coercive, people can choose to participate or not, and let's say they have to pay to participate. Why wouldn't that scale?