This is very circular. You prefer companies to the state, because we can chose which companies we deal with and companies can’t use violence. But it’s the state that says companies can’t use violence.
A monopoly on violence is a necessary condition for being a state. It is something that is true for states but not other things, and it isn't circular to say they are potentially more dangerous for having that attribute.
I think the parent poster’s idea is that a state is a necessary condition for a nonviolent company. In the absence of a state enforcing trade laws you’d just have companies running their own navies and armies to keep the peace, as was the case at times in the past.
I don't prefer companies, just don't like the idea that other people can use violence against me and it's illegal for me to defend myself.