I think you're viewing things the wrong way around in terms of origin. The state doesn't give rise to the status quo, it protects it. Such a potent mechanism of social control requires power, and wealth is power. The wealthy created the first state, not vice versa.

Ultimately, protecting your rights is about maintaining the right power balance. If any one individual amasses too much wealth, they become increasingly capable of exerting their will on others until they're able to hire enough soldiers to monopolize violence and create a state. The vast majority of people may be well intentioned, but history shows there is ALWAYS a tiny percentage that is happy to seize power if they can and trample on the concept of consent.

This is why I'm asking these questions. Agorists want everything to be consensual, and that's a great ideal, but some people don't give a damn about consent, and there needs to be some acknowledgement of that. Power dynamics erode consent, so where do you draw the line, and how do you keep people from crossing it?