The strawman is that all statists are simply afraid of dissolving the state and letting the markets sell security. Your example simply takes all of the detail and theses of anti-anarchist positions just to make it easy for you to refute. And, guess what the definition of such a fallacy is called: a strawman.
You really could only get away with such a strawman on such an insular community like this, I dare you to try it when most of the room doesn’t agree with the strawman.
First, learn what a strawman is. In order to make a strawman, I would have to be taking an argument and emasculating it in order to be easilly refutable. I am not doing that here, for there is neither an argument to be emasculated, nor am I even challenging any of your arguments. Instead, I am calling your actions both arrogant and self-glorifying, call that an ad hominem if you wish, but it is no strawman by any stretch of the imagination.
Good. I thought you wrote a few posts ago about how everyone was being raped. My mistake.
The question is overloaded with nomenclature. Whether it’s a “state”, “little state”, “itsy-bitsy state”, “a Swiss canton”, or “no state”, I’ll probably keep veering toward predicaments that I judge to be most beneficial (and least detrimental) to me and the ones I care about. Each of us builds a knowledge model of the universe upon which they base those judgments for themselves. Human action, and all that jazz.