Haymitch you are basically correct that the whole concept of states is basically a protection racket and in that sense they are a self-justifying existence. While there is a strong held philosophical belief that the state is actually unneeded and that humans could just conduct their affairs without states that is a very utopian vision and one that I don't think human history really shows is feasible.
That's good enough for me. But I will say this: I think human history is far more damning of the state than pretty much anything else.
The only problem with that though is to compare what the alternative is to states you have to go to tribal existence. While some tribal existence, Innuit, where shown to be remarkably peaceful other tribal existence, New Guinea, remarkably violent. You also have to consider if things like technology and higher populations would be even possible without states. While perhaps humanity and the Earth might've been better off if we had never exceeded the tribal level of organization I doubt you and I would be here to talk about it.
Indeed, there are no modern examples of stateless societies to draw comparisons. But just imagine, for example, if everyone just started saying LOL when the executive, legislative, and judicial branches gave a new edict to follow. I don't see how this would devolve into an Inuit-like existence. If anything, these would be better off. Can you imagine the innovation that could take place were it not for patents and copyright, to just use one example? (IP is of course not a real thing, but rather a creation of the state.) Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!
I don’t know where you fall on the spectrum, but if you’re like most libertarians I know, you don’t wish to live in a world WITHOUT laws. You might want nothing beyond a police force to enforce domestic tranquility and courts to ensure that people honor their contracts, but even if the government is no larger than that, I think you would agree that someone who won’t recognize the authority of that legal framework shouldn’t get to remain under its protection. Unless you don’t believe in any laws whatsoever, you and I are both authoritarians – we’re just debating the color of the jackboots. In this situation, we have a particular legal framework (the Constitution) that most of your countrymen are pretty satisfied with. Along with every other member of your community, you get to have a say in what the laws are, but by living there, you agree to abide by all of them, even the ones you don’t like. Governments are (ideally) organizations created by their members to accomplish things collectively that the members acting alone can't do, and they exist with the understanding that while everything they do won’t make every member better off every time, all the members will live much better lives with it than they would without it. That’s why your protection-racket analogy is flawed – the racketeers aren’t operating as agents of any organization vested with authority by their community, and they’re acting purely for their own enrichment, not on behalf of the community’s wellbeing. They’re just parasites.
I would suggest that anyone who wants any sort of state is not a libertarian. At best, they are someone with libertarian tendencies. Libertarianism followed through to its logical conclusion can only be anarchism. I personally have more respect for a socialist than a "minimal government" libertarian. Also, don't confuse law with legislation. There is a difference, and it is not semantics. No, I don't. Just saying this, as though it were some righteous truth handed down from your preferred deity, does not suffice. I need a reason as to why this is the case. That's just not true. Look into the Sociological Theory of the State. Spoiler The state is purely a parasitical organization. It can exist only as long as it can extract funds from the people of a given territory in a zero-sum fashion. If that isn't predatory, nothing is.
