If you further take the position that people capable of governing themselves should prefer statelessness as a means of being free from aggression, then you are also an anarchist.

I have observed that it is just the course of things that some people and peoples are just unable to achieve statelessness because they are statists, because they choose it, and they choose it because they are incapable of thinking, and they are incapable of thinking because they choose to not think. They are immature, they have not mastered themselves. They need whatever they need, and they will follow the path they perceive to be appropriate for them. Consequentially we can say that because this or that is necessarily going to happen and there is no possibility of achieving a completely free market for these people within that possibility space, then all of the moral paths still necessitate a state.

But if you affirm that state aggression is bad, and that all states necessarily aggress by definition, and that there is a better alternative, then you must concede that you are yourself an anarchist, and have simply relegated yourself to acceptance, but never advocacy for, the pathetic state dependence of other people. Else you are inconsistent.