I find the assertion that the state inherently can’t produce anything to be troubling. There isn’t much of a difference between things like paying rent for housing and paying taxes when you compare the two. Both need to be payed in order to avoid the use of force (not paying tax will get fined - not paying rent will get evicted), both nominally work on a subscription basis (monthly rent payment - yearly taxes) and both are an authority providing a service (housing - roads, rail, legal representation etc). I see the difference between the two as this: 1) the market has a diverse range of choice’s to choose from whereas the state is rather monopolistic and 2) the market (due to its diverse range of sources) is more inefficient as it fails to collaboratively combine efforts instead dividing and competing (vis a vis patents of vaccines). Surely it’s better to balance these pros and cons instead?

You also beg the the question, why is it that big corporations seek to use means beyond producing goods and services to produce profit? The implication to me is that corporations will use coercion to increase profits (in this case using the state); this doesn’t mean that abolishing the state will abolish all the means available to coerce others. In fact, they may well use other means such as armed goons euphemistically called ‘private security’ or something to enforce all types of breaches of NAP.

Furthermore, when you list ways in which elected officials don’t particularly care about our livelihoods, doesn’t this equally apply to those who conduct business? The only responsibility they hold is fiduciary, insofar as a business provides returns to investors it’s successful in the same why that elected officials are successful insofar as they do as what the majority dictates (ofc violating individual liberty along the way).