These are certainly the best arguments presented so far, and any state has to mount very serious arguments against anarchy. I really don't want to go into that debate now, although I will sketch the argument:

Back in what I call The Original Tribe (i.e. the natural environment humans have lived in and adapted to most of their evolutionary history) there was no state. There were only a few dozen tribe members and the organization of that tribe could just as easily be called anarchism as socialism, laissez-faire, tribalism or nationalism. With such a small group all these organizational systems become virtually identical. Indeed, that is why all these are so popular. The reason you don't need a state in The Original Tribe is because you have something that completely balances power and prevents violation: love and friendship. If you KNOW someone personally it is extremely unlikely that you will enslave them. And if you are part of a family you tend to share with each other in an egalitarian socialist like manner.

The problem with love and friendship is that they don't scale up. You can love and be friends with so and so many people, but beyond that you have no relation with them. They are alien to you, strangers. Now, THIS event (which probably took place around 12,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture after the dramatic rise of CO2 after the ice age) of scaling up the tribe to such a size that the STRANGER was introduced in society was also the birth of slavery and structural violation. With a sufficiently large tribe there will always be groups who have no moral restrictions on what they could do to other groups in the tribe, and hence you get the rise of mafia and despotism. Thus, what is needed is a system that allows for the STRANGER to live safely. That's what a classically liberal society is all about: privacy, i.e. the right to be a stranger. Socialists don't want you to be a stranger. They insist on you being part of the family, treating you as part child and part brother whom they can demand egalitarian sharing from.

But in this world filled with strangers it is inescapable that there will arise mafias who will take over the whole of society and impose despotic rule -- fascism -- on everyone. This happens rarely, but when it happens the condition is extremely hard to get rid of and lasts for centuries. Therefore, what is needed is a minimal state with a single purpose: to prevent the births and takeover of mafias, which is inevitable in a world of anarchy.

However, notice that the minarchy can be very, very small, allowing for something very close to private security firms and even private courts, and if you read our section on Rule of Law, I briefly outline MY strategy for preventing a minarchy from devolving into fascism, as it has in the United States and Europe.

http://freestateinitiative.org/free-state/rule-of-law