It's hard to reason about your hypothetical, because it seems to directly contradict actual experience. But it seems fairly straightforward to reason about what I, personally, would do: I want the chance of crimes against me minimised, so I accept the no-laws state as the best way of getting that. But if I nonetheless am among the unlucky ones, then I want revenge, so I get revenge. By hypothesis, the chance that the other guy's friends will successfully punish me has got to be small, because we've established that crime is very low in this hypothetical universe.

You know this doesn't have to be relegated to "thought experiment". It's pretty much the story of a large part of human history:

There were no state-enforced laws, per se, but you didn't kill people, because then their family/clan/tribe would kill you. Of course then your family would do the same, and well..you can see how this might be a never-ending downward spiral. A more sophisticated way would be to pay a weregild . (I killed your brother. Sorry. Here's some goats.)

If you are interested in seeing how this actually worked out, early Icelandic society is a pretty good microcosm. If you want to make learning it fun, read a saga. (Here's Njal's Saga )