1) Yes, basic communist dogma. I know.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA, that ain't what communism says, even anarcho communism. Communism claims the state is good, because the state is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Learn a little.
2) This is an example of libertarian redefinition, which you use inconsistently. Of course States have rights. To suggest otherwise is to say either states have no authority to do anything, or are unconstrained it what they can do.
First, the concept of rights is treated differently by
every philosophy, so I could call you out for 'redefining' out as well, but I wouldn't, because that would be dumb. We have different philosophies, which look at rights in different ways.
Second, your fallacy of the excluded middle here is blatant and obvious. The libertarian state has a very limited set of things it can do (for example: Military, basic lawmaking for theft/harm only, judicial system, a police force, taxes to run it,
maybe a diplomatic branch. That's it.). But the state does not have the
right to do these things. These things are a privilege granted to it by the people under it. A privilege that can be unilaterally revoked by the people. A right cannot be unilaterally revoked, otherwise it is not a right.
So, no. Your 'clever' excluded middle fallacy is just wrong.
3) Yes, Libertarians and communists come to the same view: either the state is inherently evil (anarchist communism) or it has an infinite mandate to the greater good to do anything that improves people. I am using Horseshoe correctly, you just don't understand my argument.
Oh, then you're just a moron, who doesn't understand anything about anarchocommunism. For one, it's an oxymoron that requires a state to function. Two, because of that lack of understanding, people who espouse anCom ideas aren't anarcho communist, they are usually just communists. So no, horseshoe theory doesn't apply.