I believe his point is that taken to its logical conclusion, states are able to do all of the things that they do because there is inevitably the consequence of violence for non-compliance. All of your examples result in violence for disobedience: destroying infrastructure, breaking laws, ignoring subpeonas. A core idea is that property ownership requires the threat of violence to work; don't pay your rent but don't move out and the sheriff will show up sooner or later. Do you have an example of something a state does that is not actually supported by its power to wield violence?
Violence is a valid perspective through which to understand all that a state is. This is true. The existence of the state is to provide mechanisms to regulate violence so that it can be directed in a moderately controlled fashion; this has been true from village chieftains to imperial legions to the FBI and KGB.
This can be a useful perspective, but it's rarely actually used to any intellectual benefit: people generally bring it up only as an excuse to dismiss the concept of statehood as worth exploration, because we've internalized the notion of violence as bad. It's just libertarian fear-mongering, and it drives away discussion of real issues of violence from the public arena into the private backrooms of government where we don't have a say because we act like a lynch mob when it comes up.
The thing is that the violence-based perspective isn't "how things work". It's simply one way to explain how things work, and it's a wildly ineffective one with a bare minimum of explanatory power: enough, mostly, to set up a false dichotomy between "bad violent people, i.e. amoral men in black with guns" and "you, who are totally not a violent person but would be only if forced, right?"
I didn't say that the violence-based perspective is how things work, I said that it's important to understand how things work and the implication there in my mind was that the violence-based perspective is an important part of that. I thought it was just too obvious to mention that there are many lenses through which to see the world.
For me, the way to refute Assange's point that states depend on violence and are therefore bad is not to say no they don't, or that that's not a useful perspective, but rather, "Look at the wondrous things we can build using our ability to marshal force effectively."
When I first heard about this violence-based perspective, it threw into question the notions of society and in particular human rights that I had from my high school education, because as you say, we have this internalized notion that violence is bad.
But now that I understand that rights really are just agreements between people that are brought into existence by violence, it actually makes me glad to have this violence around, and I don't see it as a universally bad thing. Nevertheless, I would prefer a society in which there is as little violence as possible, but I'm not by any means convinced that the answer there is "less state".
Regardless of whether a state exists or not, the only meaningful definition of "property" includes a threat of violence. It is not meaningful to say "this is mine" without the implied threat of violence against those who would take it - whether carried out by the individual themselves or outsourced to the local emperor.
Without property there is not commerce, there is not agriculture, no civil growth and development to speak of.
There is a difference between defensive violence and offensive violence. For example, do you believe that you own your body? I do, and I would defend myself if necessary. I would only use violence against those that are threatening me though. If you hold that you own your body, then by extension you own the output of the things you create with your body.
As for your first paragraph, of course. I was just pointing out how things are with states, but you're right that for property it extends to individuals. As for your second, communism begs to differ, but it hasn't done so admirably in the world...
It would be nice if a society could exist that wasn't reliant on violence and also not suck, but I'm not sure if it's really possible.
Oh and "this is mine" has meaning in the context of a relationship where one party will simply be upset if the object is taken and the other party cares enough about them not to take it for that reason, even though there is no threat of violence if they do. This is how many couples and families work.
