Prudence Morality implies states are imprudent.
Coercion is defection is anethitropism. Coercion is always negative-sum. States are defined as a monopoly on coercion considered legitimate. Defection inherently splits the interests of the defector and victim, hence states are inherently opposed to the societies that host them, unless a ruler who resists incentives can be reliably found.
For two reasons, first that legitimization is for neutralizing self-defence, and because defection allocates resources away from the society to the state, the state will tend to grow. Because defection is negative-sum, this will tend to weaken the society until it can no longer support the state at all and both die.
There are good reason to think states are inevitable.
States arise because in the short term, there are local rewards for defection. It was known by Sun Tzu's time that wars of aggression are not profitable. If A attacks B, when the dust settles they both lose to C. However, luck plays a factor. If a wannabe state manages to defect successfully, it makes further defection easier, and thus more likely. Alternatively, people are stupid. If A attacks B despite the negative expected value, C comes into a position to seize both A and B, meaning it can use A and B's resources to also seize D, and so on.
A stable, healthy society is one where there is no coercion is considered legitimate - anarcho-whateverism.
Pessimism: states are unavoidable. Rulers who resist incentives cannot be reliably found.
Anarcho-pessimism: the cause of general welfare is screwed in general.