Briefly: Ulbricht subscribed to a philosophy that boiled down to "the state is inherently bad and must be overthrown". He explicitly said that was his belief several times in public. Why do you think people tolerate or support the state, as a political institution? It's because we know what the world looks like when the state becomes weak or disappears. It looks like Mexico or Somalia. Not some peaceful, non-violent utopia but a place dominated by men like Ulbricht - people who are quite willing to assassinate anyone who gets in the way of their business empire.
Ah, now we're getting down to business! You interpret no state as "Somalia". Well no wonder you don't like ancaps.
But I ask you, if a lack of a state results in gangs perpetually at war with each other, doesn't that imply a need for a world govt? After all, without a world govt, the national govts would be at perpetual war with each other. Now granted, nations do war quite frequently, but what explains the relative peace between first world nations? There's no supra-national govt to keep the peace, so why isn't there perpetual war?
Look, I know from watching your talks that you're a sharp guy. But it's apparent that if your argument against anarcho-capitalism is that it by default boils down to gangs at war and Somalia, then you don't know the rich history of scholarship around the topic, and you've not taken the time to ruminate on it. I hope you do.