In Thomas Paine's reading, government is "a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world".
My anarchist friends might blanche at the insinuation that it's necessary, and my statist friends might blanche at the idea that government itself is not a moral institution.
Might be an issue with simple verbiage, though. Is it inherently necessary? I dunno... probably, but that's the wrong question for direct political action. It's inevitable, at least in my life and the lives of my children. It's possible that some far-off sci-fi future could render effective and positive anarchy or effective and positive communism possible, but that's the realm of abstract philosophy, not politics.
If your idea of anarchy promotion is to focus on the things that can be done outside of government (or outside of rulers) in your personal or societal life, good on you. Have at it. But we ain't gonna vote our way to anarchy, and any violent revolution is gonna give us greater government rather than none in any time frame worth considering.
Like... voting ain't gonna produce a minarchist level of government in our lifetimes either, but at least that's a matter of degree that actually can be shifted in the usual way. What makes anarchy a utopian ideal isn't whether or not anarchists actually believe it would solve every problem--they don't. It's pretending that it's an actual achievable state that could stand in the timeframe of even a few generations.
Whether or not anarchy is more or less moral (or desirable) than minarchy seems like a useless argument that is repeated over and over in some of my circles. What matters is how you can get from point a to point b, and if the long road to anarchy leads through minarchy, it doesn't seem worth the time y'all seem to spend.