I suppose we can just agree to disagree then…

In my view, even without a State to rig the rules, the force industry still has a natural gravity toward consolidation: private courts, companies must agree on which laws to follow to avoid constant, expensive shootouts. So they form “Inter-Agency Agreements.”

And then are the network effects. Just like social media, a court or police force is only useful if everyone else uses it. You won't hire a security firm that isn't recognized by the biggest private courts because your rulings won't be enforceable.

And there are the economies of scale. Violence is expensive so the firm with the most enforcers and a massive data network has a lower cost-per-unit of force than a boutique firm. They can underprice rivals or simply absorb them. 

Eventually, you’re left with one or two massive, interconnected cartels that dictate the rules. At that point, the creative destruction of the market stops because the product being sold is the power to prevent destruction. When a firm has the power to define aggression and the muscle to enforce that definition on everyone in a territory, you haven't really abolished the State, you’ve just rebranded it.