More to the point: what constitutes power is different.

This is a good point. I should have said, in the absence of law, there is only power through individual domination and vassalage. Law does not guarantee a more equitable distribution of power but it can allow for it.

I disagree. Law (not in a vacuum but as practiced) can distribute power and thus unseat the power of strength alone. In many places throughout history, a strong person could hit whomever they wanted excepting the rich and aristocratic. A man could in this way dominate his family and neighbors. The only recourse was honor killing and revenge.

Today, in many places, even minor assault will result in consequences. In this way, the law redistributes power from the physically strong to those who may be weak but who have legal standing.

Of course, in an absolute sense, everything redounds to power. All law is in the end, enforced at the point of a gun. But this is an observation with very little practical utility IMO. It's like the saying which people employ when things are not going well, "it could be worse".

To be clear, I'm am here making a case for law as an insurance against indivual domination and warlordism which I think it can be. I am not making a case for the state in general though.

Well, that is a fair point; conflating law and state was an ironic mistake for this anarchist to make.