We have our preferences for an ideal world....mine is anarchy.Both the "noble savage" and the "violent/oppressive savage" are stereotypes and generalizations. Some hunter-gatherer cultures were pretty authoritarian; others were quite egalitarian and decentralized. The word "tribe" also means something more like "ethnic group" than "state"; it doesn't really say anything about how a society is organized. Often a chief would have a mostly ceremonial position with little political power.
Also, a "minimal state" preserves the state's potential for brutality (police, armies etc) without its beneficial functions (health care, education etc). Say the state is an iron gauntlet with an oven mitt over it. "Minarchism" is saying that getting punched will hurt us all less if you take off the oven mitt and leave the gauntlet on.
But in a real world filled with a diverse variety of imperfect humans, anarchy doesn't appear to be practical or possible.
Organized states would conquer anarchist societies because they'd be unable to resist.
So how do we balance our idealistic goals with survivability in a real world filled with rapacious enemies?
I favor minarchy.
But even that isn't gaining major traction anywhere.
The closest embodiment is the Libertarian Party, & it garners only a percent or so of votes.