Alright @Alyosha, let's start out debate!
For our purposes here, the state refers to the following four institutions corresponding to the use of official force:
1. Police
2. Courts
3. Prisons
4. Military
We share the view that these institutions jointly constituting the state should ultimately be done away with, as the use of official force is intrinsically repressive in nature and therefore undesirable. However, this basic moral position is where the typical anarchist's argument on the subject ends, which I submit fails to take matters of the practical (the how) into due consideration. In order to adequately decipher how the state might be one day abolished we must ask ourselves how it began. I submit that whereas the state began in ancient history as a means by which the ruling classes enforced their will upon the rest, it therefore follows that the general abolition of class distinctions must historically precede the abolition of the state, lest the state spontaneously resurface. I further submit that, while it's both possible and important to steadily diminish the use of state instruments progressively as the global wealth gap shrinks, the force of the state can also actually be useful, potentially, toward the realization of the aforementioned aim (the abolition of class distinctions), namely in the way of enforcing the will of the poorer classes upon the richer ones. It is thus advantageous for the poorer classes to have states of their own, or at least to control the existing ones if possible, in the short run.
The ball is now in your court.