You're not describing a State, you're describing a culture. One that respects the property rights of others. The protocol to enforce this requires neighbors and militia, self interested in mutual protection. A State can enforce this protocol, draft its citizens, tax and spend, but it doesn't have exclusive ability to accomplish this.

We do all want such a community to exist within, but assuming a State as the only technological means of collective organization assumes there must be something, ie the State, ABOVE the individuals. This permits it to prioritize itself. It's existence must be, before peace can be. This is not so. This prioritizes the State over the people and the individuals. This inevitably corrupts every state, everywhere.

The argument, as I read it, is this. 'State' as a word, as a concept, is dated. It assumes itself, technologically, in order to organize people into peaceful coexistence. That is a lie. We organized before we made a State. The State is a technology, nothing more. It was the best we had and so it has been seared into our minds as foundational. It is not. The Nations of peoples, our tribal allegiances, and our mutual interests are foundational. The State is just tech we use and it does so much harm with this idea that it must always be, that we solved this problem 500 years ago with modern nation states and to ever be without an authority over us, is impossible.

We must strive to be Nations, not States. People before and above any organizational principle or protocol, adopted with Consensus, with liberty to divide, to fork off, to be free of capture and enslavement to a secular majority or oligarchy of the State.