Nonsense. If we set limited, well-defined objectives for the state we can determine whether those objectives are being met satisfactorily. Those who expect government to provide a paradise on earth are bound to be disappointed; but I am not one of those. (By the way, I was not aware than von Mises was an anarchist; would he have accepted the label?)
People are not perfect. They have foibles and weaknesses. The State, by its very nature is evil.It is not a reflection of the Public but rather a perverse and distorted amplification of the Public's worse tendencies.
You remind me of the gun-grabbers who say that a gun by its very nature is evil. Guns are tools; they are neither good or bad unless used for good or bad purposes. Likewise, any human organization may be used for good or ill. The state is evil when it does evil.
Heres a definition of a state for you: a State is an agency that exists for the distribution of stolen goods to politically favored groups. It takes money from the productive through taxes and distributes it to groups that are well connected. Since it rests on a foundation of theft, it necessarily is corrupt. All its actions serve to increase the amount of theft and create new groups of parasites to live off that theft.
Your definition is, of course, a caricature. (Who says that a government has to tax?) Nor does it apply to governments alone: individuals and non-governmental groups are perfectly capable of theft.
The primary mechanism that the State uses to incite one man against his fellow is War. In fact, the only thing the State is capable of is war and destruction. Nock said that war is the health of the State. At each war, the State increases its power and pushes the individual under its control a bit further. WWI brought the Income Tax. WWII turned it from a class tax into a mass tax. The power of the State increases. The freedom of the people declines.
The state did not create war; it might be more accurate to say that war created the state. You said as much yourself when you admitted that there are no anarchies because they have be conquered. That admission makes the rest of your argument pointless: why bother with an arrangement that cannot survive in the real world?
"The state is that group of people, who having got hold of the machinery of compulsion, legally or otherwise, use it to better their circumstances; that is the political means." Nock would hasten to explain that the state consists not only of politicians, but also those who make use of the politicians for their own ends; that would include those we call pressure groups, lobbyists and all who wangle special privileges out of the politicians. All the injustices that plague "advanced" societies, he maintained, are traceable to the workings of the state organizations that attach themselves to these societies."