Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
It's difficult to think of a system where the state doesn't intervene in how resources are allocated. In our current system, the state facilitates and protects private ownership. Property is 90% of the law. If you're looking for a place to stay and you come across a foreclosed home, if you squat there, the state will come and kick you out on behalf of the bank that owns the house. When a group of Indonesians make a flat screen television, it doesn't go to the workers or the factory itself or even stay in the country; the product and its bottom-line profits are allocated to a foreign entity. This is a great deal of what the state oversees.

In anarcho-capitalism, the state goes away in only the most pedantic sense. The military and police are replaced by mercenaries and mall cops, but I guess at least the facade goes away that they're not acting on the direct behalf of private interests?
The state is funded by use of force. Anarcho-capitalism has the same institutions (essentially) yet they are funded by choice. This is the base distinction between the two. We will always have societies with rules and that is good. The question is who makes the rules and why do they make them.

To encapsulate, the statist position is to have a monopoly that uses force to construct institutions. The anti-state position is to have institutions constructed by agents' choice. The difference is like if the government taxes to pay for school versus if people were to pay for school out of their own pockets.

So it's just a matter of how you define the terms in your OP. If you think it's self-evident that someone having a picnic in a Baron's garden is an infringement on the Baron's personal liberties, and so having the police show up to kick them off isn't a government intervention, then you're going to demand an explanation if the Baron's estate ends up being used as a public space. If you see the police dragging a man away for having a picnic on an unused plot of land as a government intervention, then you'll see it exactly the other way. So having the conversation on those terms isn't terribly useful.
This is a great observation. The distinction the OP makes is about who is doing the kicking off of Baron's garden and why. If it is a tax-funded rule-setting and enforcement body (typically we call this government), then for that to be better than it being by a freely-chosen rule-setting and enforcement body (there isn't a word for this yet) requires that it be more efficient. And vice versa.