This title-question can be answered from two points of view: the ethical and the logical-economic.
Let's start with the economic argument; the state is the most inefficient way of allocating scarce resources, and it is surprising that such a paradoxical and illogical system has been sustained by virtually the entire history of humanity. And why is it inefficient? Because the state, per se, does not act based on the price system, which is the mechanism responsible for transmitting information on supply and demand to all economic agents involved. So the state apparatus is unable to determine which consumer's latest wishes, which by the way, flow non-linearly. Moreover, of course, because it is an absolute monopoly, the cost of its services increases inversely proportional to quality, that is, what the state offers becomes more and more expensive at the same time that it becomes worse and worse. as good economic theory teaches us, monopolies have no incentive to reduce prices, nor to offer better versions of their goods. It could not be different with the state. And lastly, the state, by using its power to interfere in markets, generates distortions and bad allocations throughout the productive chain of society, with incalculable reflexes.
Finally, let's go to the ethical argument: the state is not only a monopoly, it is a coercive monopoly that does not recognize the inherent natural rights of the human being, demands total submission and has always been, and will always be, equipped to serve the worst interests of the all; if it is an absolute monopoly that serves as ascension ladder for degenerates, then such a structure, in order to maximize social goodness, should not exist.
No enterprise, no private organization, could ever accumulate such power as modern states have achieved: if for some reason they succeeded, they would cease to be private organizations and would necessarily become states. In a genuine free market, a company only stays in the game if it satisfies the needs of its clients, so that the films and series portraying evil corporations enslaving the people and forcing them to consume their products is nothing more than an socialist delirium: who puts rifles in our heads forcing us to deliver 40% of what we legitimately produce is the state.
Therefore, we can conclude that if you hold for the existence of a state, you will be incoherent both logically and ethically. He is simply indefensible.