"It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid." — F.A. Hayek

I agree that there will always be criminals (those who commit aggression) and a proper social system should discourage their behavior rather than supplement it. The more free a country is, the more wealth the residents produce and the more valuable they are as livestock for tax eaters to dominate. Government breeds and attracts criminals because it gives them the legitimacy they need to openly coordinate their aggression with other like minds. Natural law does not provide a method for criminals to presume to regulate other people's lives and property because the market discourages aggression and promotes the voluntary and the consensual.

In part, I agree that we can't just abolish one form of institution and expect to live in liberty. It takes changing the prevailing idea that one person's gain is another person's loss, which encourages the notion that it is necessary to govern others by force. I think history played this out. Religion was abolished as the prevailing method of control, and so serfdom and slavery were elevated as the preferred method for a minority of people to dominate the masses. Those are mostly eradicated, so a more deceptive form of serfdom has risen. In all that time, they never shed the central premise of all institutionalized methods of coercion, the necessity to control others. Finally, I think David Friedman makes a convincing case that the state could not return if abolished peacefully. That would need an entire post to expand upon.

The point I'm making is that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

"After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest." – Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

While he debunks this point as far as he doesn't resign his conscience to the majority, it confirms that there will always be coercion. Whether your 'state' is 300 million within the borders of the United States of America, the 24 million within the borders of Texas or the 25 that live on your block, there will result in a unit that grabs power because they are the strongest. The key in a republican form of government is to ensure a moral people elect a moral representative body that has the wisdom to understand when its use of coercion is running exactly contrary to its purpose.

When you get done abolishing today's perceived institutions of coercion, there will be the next institution that is no different than the one you vanquished to stand in its place waiting for you.

Your stateless society is a state society. Your only argument is under the number of states. You wish to impose rules on their accepted belligerence and never have a means of enforcing those rules, except through the same moral people that I put on a pedestal.