Statist claim: Anarchists would prevent people from creating States.

Fallacy:

If people in a free society want a state they will make one and not allowing them to do so would be infringing on their freedoms. (Shysty Shane Love)

Response:

Consider what it means to "make a state": it is to create an agency which systematically violates rights (e.g., by robbing and coercing peaceful people who have broken "laws" that involve no harm to people or property). Since individuals do not have a right to rob and coerce peaceful others, they cannot create an agency with such rights, and to "make a state" is to infringe on freedoms. To stop someone from doing so infringes on no freedoms at all, for there is no such thing as freedom to coerce others, while there certainly is a right to self-defense.

But what if we had a "state" that only taxed and ruled those that consented? Would that not be valid within a free society (in the same way as you could pay someone to beat you if you really wanted)? The question makes no sense: a state by definition rules non-consenting individuals and violates rights; an organization that acts with the consent of its customers is called a business, not a state. A "voluntary state" is a contradiction. But you could have something that looked very much like a state if you wanted. But why would you? Why pay a percentage of your income, trades, and home value and allow yourself to be caged at the whim of politicians, even if you do get roads out of it, when your neighbors are paying for services they use (and certainly the option to pay for bundled services through a reseller would be an option for them too, so there's not even the convenience factor)?

You might elect to do so if the value you received was greater than the value taken from you, but this is clearly unsustainable. Most people who would pay more than they received would cease to be customers, and now taxes need to be higher to cover costs, pushing more people into the category of net payers, and incentivizing them to leave. If, instead, this "state" decides to charge people by what they use, and abolishes laws against peaceful acts, then now it's just a service bundler and even more merely a business. (DBR)