What about a society or technology that renders obsolete the incentive to kill a human invading your property

First off there's two different concepts: society and technology that you seem to use in this context interchangeably, and it's not clear how they relate. Next, why not expound on that, it seems that stopping there to what amounts as conclusion is a haphazard way of tying it all up:

You make the point that Capitalism is common sense in a society without monopolies centered on violence and operating through coercion/force. Alas, you jump over to Murder is common sense wrong because there's no religion to.. fear you into acting right..? I take it to mean that murder is wrong because do onto others/golden rule..? but you didn't expound on that obviously, which is why it devalues the next thought where you invalidated the subsequent next thought by saying that when government is gone the answer to healthy human systems worthy of voluntarily supporting.. is not voluntarism... which makes that thought nonsensical because voluntarism is no coercion/ no threats of violence, but simply, and ever unequivocally voluntary.
Then you invalidated your argument even more:

Even in an anarchic society there is a very significant cost of establishing trust and preventing fraud.

But offered nothing more than conjecture to that end, creating a train of thought that holds no coherent direction in rationale, it's leaps of logic. As a apropos, here's evidence that you are assuming far too much and haven't considered real world scenarios to anarchy/voluntarism: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/06/the_mystery_of_zomia/

Then you invalidated that thought, like I was saying, by your very next sentence:

Any society that can reduce these costs likely through community, reputation and love will out perform systems that simply rely on the rules written in violently enforced agreements.

That is the essence of anarchism, voluntarism. That is exactly the core, the tenets of anarchy. And right before that thought you argued anarchy isn't going to achieve those ends because of fraud and establishing trust which is not only simplistic but obtuse and just more conjecture and assumptions, especially when you consider the principles of anarchy are not to create a better system but to allow people to chose their interactions and relations freely.
So it comes back to the closing thought which you argue will somehow stop a murdering psychopathic person simply through technology or society, and argue that stealing is what one does when they take from someone who defrauded someone else. Stealing and murder are very easy to define, and the course of action is equally simple: Murder the murderers, or cage them for ever. Take back your property and the damages you incurred, for not having said property, from the thief, or is that not the right, just, course of action? If not please provide examples/scenarios about said society or technology that will stop the incentive of defending my life and my property by killing the invader, and the incentive of recovering my stolen property through that same or similar society or technology.

Maybe then I can share my opinion about what will happen when monopolies that coerce us into buying are no more..