It’s this openmindedness and willingness to revise your views that will allow you to come to the truth. I don’t see why others aren’t commending you.
Now as to how a society can work without centralized force, those are practical points about which much has already been written. Since they are practical, real-world points, they are a bit more complicated and not short enough to explain here, but here is a convenient reading list that includes some short articles that make good cases all by themselves. You say you’re not interested in anarcho-capitalism, but don’t mind the name - it’s just anti-monopolism. If you’d like to know how a society can work without centralized force, that school of thought has the best set of arguments and explanations you’ll find.
I agree. Morality seems to me a useless additional construct, or just a semantic obfuscation. It needlessly confuses people.
We have a sense of empathy (but we can’t rely on everyone having it), and we have self-interest and logic. It seems that all the conclusions of “morality” that are relevant to political economy can be derived from those basic aspects of human nature, without the confusing complications. For example, the non-agression principle is attractive because it would outlaw any violation of the life, liberty, and property of us, everyone we care about, and who could ever benefit us. It is further attractive because it organizes society in an extremely efficient way. Both the attractive “moralistic” and utilitarian aspects only require self-interest to explain. Of course, the NAP is also attractive to the sense of empathy most people have even for complete strangers, but that is just icing on the cake.