A thing being better than something else doesn't make it good or just. I have no doubt that the surrounding states are awful, but that doesn't mean that anarchy is good. That's a fallacy. I would agree that a state should be minimal and unintrusive (prevent men from using force against one another, or provide mediation before or after they do). But that doesn't mean that having no state is somehow better. That's a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to have a moral state. I define that as a state that exists only to defend my property rights. That to me is far better and more realistic than just having everyone do whatever the duck they want simply because they have the bigger gun.