Statists believe that what we have right now is consent.

It's not up to aggressors to decide when their victims consent.

A large group of people on the face of this earth, bounded by imaginary borders agrees to a given set of ethos.

Large groups of people used to also sacrifice virgins to volcanoes and kill people for saying the earth wasn't flat. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Morality is subjective. We need to accept this.

I certainly don't accept this. If morality is subjective, when would it be moral for you to rape someone? The whole point of morality is to identify universal standards of interpersonal conduct. To call it subjective is to render the whole concept of morality meaningless.

They accept violence as part of morality.

If you're talking about the initiation of violence rather than "all violence" (given that defending yourself from violence with violence isn't immoral), then they're immoral regardless of what they claim or accept.

In the same way you would accept violence as moraliuty in case you are defending yourself.

This is absolutely batshit crazy. Aggression and defense are the same thing? Raping someone and defending yourself against are equal? If you're arriving at the conclusion that rape is morally equivalent to self defense, you need to reevaluate your propositions.

the only difference is that some people, eg statists, are trigger happy with their safety.

This sentence is absolutely meaningless.

Lets say goverments fall. Then what? Groups of people will still clumb together and fight over resources.

Speculative. Appeal to incredulity. Yet another logical fallacy.

Have you ever been hungry. I mean 3-4 days hungry. I have. You have no idea what it does to you until you experience it.

Yes I have, but that's irrelevant. Food doesn't come from government. Fearmongering isn't an argument; it's just intellectual laziness.

Most people on this earth engaging in conflict have morality shaped from these conditions. Wars exist because some group of people say they defend some other group of people.

Wrong. People in desperate situations do immoral things because they are more concerned with survival than morality. I'm not saying I blame them for that but that doesn't make immorality moral.

Wars exist because some group of people say they defend some other group of people.

Wrong. War exists when plunder is less burdensome than consensual exchange, which it always is as long as it is admitted that some people should be able to get away with doing immoral things.

Imagine you belong to an anarchist group in a post apocalyptic no-goverment era. You are called to defend another group of people who got attacked because kids are killed and women raped. What do you do? Do you engage in war? Do you stay there doing nothing? What if you engage in war and people die as collateral?

Why does your question begging assume that a group of men and women who force people to pay them prevents "the apocalypse"? Now you're bringing religion into this? Why would men and women need to steal from others in order to defend women and children?

Again, appeal to incredulity combined with fear mongering. Remember when I said all attempts to justify statism would lead to contradiction and logical fallacy? You're proving my point.

These questions are not easy nor can be answered unless you have been through some tough situations. Being a couch anarchist from a comfy western culture, philosophysing about the world, does't change anything.

There's the ad-hom, and the performative contradiction. Thought we were going to get all the way through this without one of those. Speculating about what I may or may not haven been through doesn't justify the immoral. Nice try though, sophist. Likewise, trying to change my mind by philosophizing from your couch about whether or not I can change the minds of others by philosophizing from my couch is a performative contradiction.

Thanks for being a case study for exactly what I was talking about in the original post!