Big problem here is that he's missing the primary role of the State. The State is the organization that has the monopoly on violence in a certain territory. If

Big problem here is that he's missing the primary role of the State. The State is the organization that has the monopoly on violence in a certain territory. If you look around the world there are plenty of areas that are "Stateless" and they tend to have multiple organizations competing (always violently) to gain this monopoly and become the State. His examples perfectly play into this: 1900s immigrant communities in New York had violent competing gangs, Medieval Europe has a crazy high murder rate (as that was a very common means of dispute resolution), and many black communities are still struggling with having been abandoned by the State. What these anarchist arguments come down to is saying that profoundly non-utilitarian arrangements that have repeatedly shown to be rife with human suffering are superior to stable first world societies due to adherence to some hokum about liberty being the most important thing.