This is because we think of states as they are today, meaning democratic.
The problem is that democracy and the notion of majority rule are inherently socialistic and predicated on the socialist-ethic, that the collective should be greater than the group and can override the will of the individual.
In any such state where the locus of control rests with the collective, it is a socialist state and will always tend towards socialism, and this has been equally true in the US.
However, it may be possible to create a state predicated on the individualist-ethic, where the locus of control rests with each individual over himself. Where majority does not rule a dissenting minority, but where the individual rules solely himself.
Such a society would continue to exhibit individualism and have no tendency towards socialism–in theory.
And you would call such a place an autarchic republic.
I disagree with Hoppe’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion that a king would be better. Perhaps it would or not. But I don’t think Hoppe has ever considered the possibility of autarchy, and neither have most anarchists.