Ah, now we're getting down to business! You interpret no state as "Somalia". Well no wonder you don't like ancaps.
I would like to see examples of countries (areas?) which had no formal government and which hosted a sophisticated, peaceful civilisation for some length of time. I think I've read quite a lot of history and I'm struggling to recall any such place.
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?
No, it doesn't. The opposite of no government is "some government", not "single world government".
I'm all for limited, local government. That's why the idea I'm authoritarian is so amusing. Go read some of my political posts here or elsewhere. I frequently rail against the USA's attempt to impose its law internationally. Jurisdictional competition is important and useful.
Now granted, nations do war quite frequently, but what explains the relative peace between first world nations?
It's not just between first world nations. We live in a time of unprecedented peace. Relative to past history there are hardly any wars going on right now.
The reason is: more democracies and better economics. Modern countries are deeply integrated due to lots and lots of trade. Most people don't vote for wars that will immediately make them dramatically poorer.
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.
I've actually read some Rothbard. I found his prose to be deeply unconvincing. I respect economists who develop theories and then test them against real world data. Theories that exist in the world of abstract philosophy is how you end up with the deflationary spiral idea - stuff that simply doesn't match observed reality.
Rothbard had a lot of very strange ideas about the nature of cartels and monopolies. DPR was fond of citing him as some kind of authority. But when you read his writings, where are the examples, where are the studies that show his theory matches observed reality better than other theories do? He didn't bother. He asserted some ideas as facts and then engaged in ever more tenuous logical extrapolations. My mind was open and what I found simply didn't win me over.