"How will we deal with X without a state???"

The unique and defining feature of the state is social permission to AGGRESS against others.

The little people like the idea of the state because it permits them an avenue to AGGRESS against others ANONYMOUSLY.

All of the overreaches of the state happen because the people carrying out the deeds do so anonymously (just following orders, just enforcing the law) and the rest of society accepts this rather than holding them accountable for their individual actions which they choose to do.

The orders are issued and the laws made because the lawmakers are "just carrying out the wishes of the people", they're not personally responsible for the evil that they are calling for/enabling.

The people make the political demands because they personally won't be held accountable nor will they have to get their hands dirty with the actual violence or threats of violence which they're requesting.

And people think that a social arrangement like this can be limited. Even in the "glory days of the republic" the state was an engine of violence and aggression against those who weren't "inside" it -- Indians, Mexicans, etc to benefit the people who were inside it.

What will we do about the X?
X may be "child pornographers" or "poor" or "socially awkward" or "toe fungus".

What will we do about the X without a state? We'll do what we decide is right and we'll take responsibility for doing it, personally. We won't hide in a mob. We won't hide behind a bureaucrat "just carrying out policy" or a cop "just enforcing the law."