Wheylous and Maiku
It can certainly be argued that state is non-aggressive, because it owns all the land in its area, hence doesnt violate the NAP. But even if you reject that, i can follow along and agree that yes state does do what you say. However it has the fundamental interest and incentive of keeping peace and welfare of its citizens to ensure prosperity for itself, whereas competing gangs who lack firm control of their area by this virtue dont have this incentive. Essentially, the state fundamentally has the incentive to work in the interest of its citizens BECAUSE it owns the land and can be secure that as a result of policy of protecting citizens it will gain more revenue in the long run, while direct confiscation and slavery would net far less revenue. It is this ownership that you consider evil that is what has allowed the world to prosper, both in government firmly owning its land, and as an extension in the private sector by people having firm property rights to their land.
This has all been discussed in depth in here( The failure of Anarcho-Capitalism ) so id prefer to not continue on this due to it not being part of the realist-current political situation concept of this thread, in fact your whole post was a blatant attempt to change the subject and avoid direct confrontation in the problematic areas of an-cap.
Dont worry man, ive gone through all this. Ive been the biggest fan of rothbard and an-cap, but you gotta see its problems if you want to be realist and not living in fantasy world. All i want to do is show you too the problems, so that you can move to the next level after an-cap - that is political realism and perhaps neo-nihilism / subjectivism that the mainstream political sphere adheres to.
In a sense, you can complete the full circle from main stream - extremist radical - enlightened main stream, if you only embrace the problems that an-cap has had in every example in history, and make the conclusions of the inevitability of the problems of such political radicalism.