Almost everyone thinks that self-defense is a natural right. We cheer when we see a bank robber get blasted by the private security guard upon entry into a bank; or when the purse-snatcher is thwarted by a bad chick packing an equalizer; or when home security footage reveals a homeowner put a stop to the invasion of their home; etc.
That's everyone's natural theory of justice: for victims to receive restitution by the aggressor of their bodies or physical property because it was a property rights violation; and for that it is the right of the aggressed-against to defend themselves against attackers. That's the legal theory most of us hold within. Hence that even the State pretends this is the theory it upholds, relieving property-owners and bodily-owners of any charges for using violence in self-defense.
Yet this is an immediate cause for contradiction for anyone to claim otherwise, i.e., that "government should do X", since government is founded upon the very aggression they adamantly oppose for individuals; and this aggression must precede any possible offerings of something supposedly good; our production is antecedent to the State's theft.
Arguing for anything other than non-aggression—in which I am in agreement with Hoppe that this is a performative contradiction—is morally indefensible, and runs contrary to everyone's natural theory regarding who is the aggressor or victim, i.e., who invaded who's property rights.
What you're saying when you suggest any government action is that they should use aggression against innocent people; and therefore that self-defense is indeed not a right, since everything the State does is ultimately backed with guns and cages to compel people to obey their orders. Resisters and dissidents, i.e., people practicing their right to self defense, must be shot.
Stop being a hypocrite. If your natural theory of property is that we all own ourselves (which is self-evident), and by extension own those scarce goods in which we have originally and voluntarily appropriated for ourselves, then there's no excuse why a class of people, calling themselves a "government", should be permitted to earn their income by the only possible alternative: that of being non-contractors to said resources, thereby expropriating the producers and natural owners of property.
Your argument against governmental theft itself is a form of cognitive bias. The Government is an entity formed by the people themselves. Therefore, it is the people that are responsible for the way the government functions. If the people elect corrupt officials and have a disdain for those working in favor of the truth, then what do you expect the government would function like?
Its not the concept of a philosophical state that is questioned, but rather the people running the state.
I'm not going deep to argue here as to why a state should exist, but simply state that a form of governance has played an integral role in all societies since antiquity.
The State is not "us", and your lack of consideration for this fact that it's patently coercive is not worthy of response. Not interested in your argument from history that since States (and aggression) have been around for a long time, that they're legitimate and just.
A totally egalitarian society is utopian. It cannot be completely made realistic.
For instance, if there was no 'coercive power', then how do you suppose that criminals or killers be treated. Should they be left alone? The act of punishment is a form of morality that the society is based upon. Its not perfect but surely keeps the society is check and stable.
Learning the History has been and still is very important in helping 'us' prepare for future events. So it cannot be totally ignored.
Only socialists are clamoring for egalitarianism. I recognize inequality will prevail without the State; and that the State can't achieve it anyway. And no anarchist is Utopian. Again, that's the view of statists, i.e., "free" stuff; equality, but not in liberty; law and order to fix everyone; etc. I recognize crime will still prevail under statelessness, though to a lesser degree.
It doesn't keep society "in check and stable." We're falling apart because of the backwards justice of statism: lock people up who committed no crime, by the people (the State) who actually commit crimes since their income originates in aggression.
Because there's criminals and a need for security doesn't logically conclude that it must be provided monopolistically. Again, such is a contradiction, too.
Your claim that statelessness would reduce crime is totally illogical. The crime rate would increase by multitudes if there was no state to control them. The individuals with access to abundant resources will dominate the society to a greater extent. And they would then form an informal government totally in their favor, dismissing the notion of statelessness. Finally, the poor will be under a greater oppression being forced to follow orders from this informal government to survive and slavery will return in its full glory.
Slavery never left: they just call it democracy now. There's no way any private criminals could ever hope to attain the amount of wealth expropriation and exploitation that the State does. They're able to achieve this only because they've fooled public opinion into accepting precisely what it is you push: "the poor would be worse off" (as if they aren't now, under the biggest State ever, where the term "the 1%" was created); "warlords would take over" (as if they aren't the people in government right now, who can externalize their costs of aggression onto taxpayers); etc.
Open your eyes. What do you think we have now. Look at the people who rule us.