When debates about state/non-state get lengthy, I tend to think that the fundamental premises aren't being defined. It would save a lot of time to bring things down to fundamentals.
Why do we need a State? People are selfish? Warlike? Greedy? Untrustworthy?
Any way you cut it logically, the state makes the original problem worse.
To the degree to which people "need a state" (because of their flawed nature) is exact degree to which a state must not be allowed to exist.
People are people. The people in the government will have the same flaws but be able to legally inflict those flaws upon everyone with force.
If you say people are too stupid/selfish/warlike to be trusted to voluntarily solve social problems, that condemnation also applies to people in the state...but the stupid/selfish/warlike people in the state will have FAR more power than the average person or gang. Therfore the State is a multiplier of human flaws and makes the original problem far far worse.
Arguing for a state is worse than arguing for a square-circle. It's like arguing for a square-circle, while pointing a gun at anyone who disagrees.
It is not he or she or them or it that you belong to.