Well, nothing says insecurity more than total anarchy. I would rather have most of my government be corrupt than have an anarchistic system. At least in the corrupt government, you have some level of predictability.
Max Sterner supposed that the individual is always sovereign and that anything that interfered with sole the nature of individuality was unjustifiable, ranging from law and government to family, ethics, and law. But contrary to common conception, being anarchistic does not necessarily entail being anti-organizational or having some authoritative control over the mass assembled. Peter Kropotkin is a good example of an anarcho-socialist who envisioned a perfect society built on effective commune structure balanced by communal/individual needs. So in some ways, being in total anarchy inevitable leads to some sort of organization which asserts some level of authority, whether that is implicitly or explicitly implied in terms of your social contract (i.e. natural con., constitution, rights, etc). But instead of corruption (which is judged corrupt based on laws which make it so), you would have an undefined system in which anything goes, justice and injustice included.
But then if you were to suppose that instead of total anarchy, you would rather have people (supposedly corrupt since they are abusing the power they have), you have a much better chance of actually combating the injustice. As history has shown, the existence of even the slightest rights, whether that be via constitution or inalienable rights derived by some ethical standpoint, have a much better and much more predictable outcome (hopefully for the better). The English and their civil war, the American revolutionary war, etc., these are instances in which revolt against injustice occurs within a given legal framework with laws and common conceptions of right and wrong that can be invoked if needed. In an anarchist environment (in the raw sense) I don't think you would have that particular luxury.