Susano said:
Anarchy sort of fits. The problem with anarchy though is that it supposes that at one point some form of government existed. Hobbes is thinking in terms of a world where there is no government and there never has been one. No one's thinking "let's try democracy! That worked pretty well for the Americans!" or "British monarchy worked, let's try that!" He's supposing a world that never had government or laws and that law and order will rise out of it as a natural construction of necessity.
As far as having the state of nature on hand to drive choice, what he says is that those who have lived in the state of war will always have it in the back of their minds. They still have the "choice" to murder, they just choose to give up their right to do it and choose not to resort to it because they know that if they do, it might start leading back to a state of war. They don't want that, because life in the natural state sucks hardcore, so the idea of it coming back will always sway their decisions away from something anarchistic.
The state of war is always there. It may not be actively running its course somewhere in the world, but the memory of it is enough that it might as well be. Kind of like a dark scary basement. You went there once when you were a kid, there were some strange noises and scary shadows, so you were terrified and left. Years later, your parents finished off the basement, put up walls, carpet, a ceiling, etc... and you're old enough to know there's nothing really scary about it, but you still get a shiver up your spine every time you walk down the stairs.
