The state exists for a multiplicity of reasons - some of which are harmful and some of which are beneficial.
And if the state doesn't exist then other actors will step in to and will also do a mixture of harm and good.
Any attempt to handwave away the nuance just sounds silly.
Other actors would also be States, we the people should fight against all States, not just the current one
They just hope to be on top this time.
Which rights are these and by what authority are they bestowed? Let's assume I'm an athiest for the sake of argument.
You're positing the existence of natural rights without specifying how they came into being and how they are enforced.
Generally "rights" in the normal sense of the word are created by... well... states.
I'm not naive and I'm aware of the history of anarchist thought. But I'm not sure which flavour you're espousing.
The State takes away your right to live your life and use your property, and empowers Corporations to make them richer at your cost. In the meantime, the State murders a lot of people.
Your rights must be enforced by yourself until free-market alternatives to the State are created
That, sadly, is why any analysis of "rights" is vacuous unless it is accompanied by an analysis of "power".
I wonder if you might be confusing "ought" for "is"?