I somewhat agree, though largely one is killed for it under theocratic governments past and present. Certainly this is a complication to the anarchist ideal: what to do with large groups of madmen within a society for this is the problem where the government consents or is indifferent to individual religious persecution. I contend that I'd rather deal with a crazy neighbor than a crazy person with a monopoly on force (government) but it is a valid query on what to do if you have a large segment of the population given over to some form of ideological radicalism be it religious or otherwise philosophical. There is certainly power in numbers. Largely, I think, the free market can offer the best solutions and a free market best flows in where the people choose to invest over where they are forced to "invest."

Take Detroit as an example where the government has essentially said, "enter at your own risk." The people pay for police forces and not only is the government saying that, essentially, they won't get their dollars worth in terms of being secure in their persons and having an avenue of recourse against criminal elements. Worse yet is the systemic political corruption that allows for the police force to, for the most part, get away with crimes against the citizens ranging from theft to rape to straight up murder. Private security has emerged to fill in the gap with a much higher success rate in terms of not violating the people. They are more accountable because individuals can pull funding from them of their own volition. With government you're pretty much stuck. A worthwhile watch:

As for finding a system of government that can resist corruption, etc., I don't think it possible given human nature. If we did actually evolve as a species enough to resist these things, we wouldn't really need a government at all.