I think I agree, but this seems to mean that as long as you can get the majority not to want any appreciable amount of centralization (such as through anti-statist arguments) - in other words if you can just convince enough people on that one issue - you can do without the power funnel of the state.
This has always been my argument: there is only one preference that needs to change for a stateless society to work, and that is the preference for centralized power. Why Capitalism? contains a strong argument for convincing people to prefer decentralization, for instance. Other works explain why it wouldn’t be chaos, and all sorts of other details. I find all these useful in that they help to dissuade people from preferring centralization. It seems to me, that, no matter what else people are persuaded of, if they are persuaded to be suspicious of centralization the state will perish, and if they are not, the state will survive. That is why I view all other issues as, to some extent, peripheral or supplementary (and frequently divisive; for example, it should not be too hard to convince left libertarians to abhor centralization, but it can be very hard to get them to buy other capitalist ideas).