That's a pragmatic issue. I have ideas about how conflicts can be solved in a free society but I don't think myself or any organization have the capacity to force solutions on a very large group of people. Statism displays this sort of arrogance because ultimately coercion is the mode of organizing people and enforcing contracts.

The question we should be asking ourselves first is if it is right to initiate force against others in order to achieve our goals. The practical questions about who builds the roads, prevents theft, protects the environment are important but trivial when considering taxation, incarceration and democide. These are important principle questions you should think about and apply to your own life. I am sure you would not prefer to have people close in your life get thrown into prison for not paying their taxes if they object to the wars and welfarism, for possessing a small amount of unpopular vegetation, for owning a firearm, etc.

First we need to point out the gun in the room and then we can begin to talk about practical ways of solving conflicts without concentrating a legitimate monopoly on force within the state. Again the logical problem here is that if the goal is to prevent beach of contracts and interpersonal violence with state power there ends up being violence anyway, through taxation and the levying of laws.