Opponents of anarchism typically put forward all these game-theory-esque objections… like won’t one protection company rule? How do you stop everyone from killing each other? How do you have roads?
They basically all come down to public goods problems. Anarchists have various ways of solving these public goods problems, such as dominant assurance contracts, competitive bidding, and insurance. We also often challenge the validity of the public/private goods distinction, or claim through the Coase Theorem that it will work itself out.
In short, we counter their game theory with our game theory. They usually aren’t very good at it in the first place, perceiving the world to be a giant Risk game. Double standards exist, never applying prudentialism onto the state* So why talk game theory to people who won’t understand or apply it? What are our alternatives?
Realizing many of our opponents lack creativity and entrepreneurship, one solution is to reconstruct their statist argument as closely as possible, without it technically being a state.
Most statists envision a central entity, that is bound to its members to provide certain functions. Its member base is usually a geographic region, ideally with relatively homogenous interests. Can we think of any such voluntary organizations? Aren’t apartment complexes like monarchies? Neighborhood associations like democracies?
In short, these organizations have ALL the mechanical features of a state, and yet remain voluntary. Our statists should have absolutely zero complaints to the effifacy of this organization. It can tax (rent). It can build roads and pipes without free-riders. It can perform dispute resolution and provide security. We’ll call this way of organization “Centralism”
So, for consistency, our statist must admit s/he is not married to the idea of a state, but rather to Centralist societies. They like the state, beacuse it is a means to Centralism. But there are other means, and not all States are Centralist.
Now, rather than muddle about with how to provide electricity to a block of houses, we can discuss the merits of entrusting either an aggressing territorial monopolist or a voluntarily empowered and contractually bound entrepreneur with the task.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Good hunting 
*I don’t know of any games that can be solved by empowering one player to be judge in his own case. If I were forced to abandon anarchism, I would become a political atheist before crawling back to statism.